Our President tries to bring competing narratives together, but passions on both sides make it extremely difficult.
Here, e.g., is the January 28, 2010 Ha'aretz editorial on a view of "Israeli terrorism" that doesn't make it into the US media. That is why you are getting it to pass on to others who think Palestinian "terrorism" is the only culprit. JRK
Haaretz (Editorial)
January 28, 2010 - 12:00am
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1145672.html
There is no way to describe the West Bank settlers' attack on the Palestinian village of Bitilu but as a well-planned terror attack. The settlers' "military" organization and violent resistance to the cabinet decision to destroy the illegal outpost of Givat Menachem, as described by Chaim Levinson in Haaretz yesterday, are no different from the activities of other terrorist organizations. This includes the incitement, ranting and raving preceding the act of vengeance on Bitilu, the attempt to set a house on fire, the injuring of villagers with stones, and the threat to continue these violent tactics.
These are not unusual acts. Israel Defense Forces officers report a significant increase in the number of settler attacks on Arab villages and communities following the decision to freeze construction in the settlements. The term "price tag" - once coined in reference to the IDF's policy toward terror organizations - has long been adopted by the settlers and transformed to mean retaliation against the Israeli government's policy.
The decision to dismantle the Givat Menachem outpost is commendable, although it is not sufficient in itself to implement Israel's commitment to take down all illegal outposts. Still, one cannot but be amazed by the IDF Spokesman Office's watered-down response to the settlers' terror attack.
"This activity is improper legally, morally and normatively," the spokesman said. "Central Command is determined to take full, legal action against the rioters." Is this merely improper activity? Would the IDF describe a similar act this way if it were carried out by Palestinians against a Jewish settlement? Wouldn't the army impose a closure and immediately make arrests, not to mention shoot the perpetrators?
But the IDF's evasive terminology is not to blame when the Knesset is enacting a law to pardon the transgressors who rioted during the Gaza disengagement. This law, which will even expunge the criminal record of those who assaulted soldiers, is now legitimizing the "price tag" actions. These terrorists already know, thanks to this distorted legislation, that they will not have to pay for their actions.
The government is not permitted to protect these offenders and must treat their actions as acts of terror, unless it wants to be seen as their partner.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
America, Meet Henry Siegman!
Jim Wall, former editor of the Christian Century, continues to advocate "change" in the equation between Israelis and Palestinians. His regular blog (www.wallwritings.wordpress.com) keeps introducing us to persons who contribute insight and make practical suggestions for genuine change.
In his current issue, he quotes from an article in NATION by Henry Siegman, a veteran Jewish author who is respected in the "peace camp" (though of course, not favored by Zionists).
America is oblivious to what is obvious to the rest of the world: that the US supports an Apartheid, exclusively Jewish nation which continues to disenfranchise the natives of the land.
In its relentless efforts to "settle" the entirety of Palestine, (at the expense of the natives), the former and present Zionist enterprise fuels anti-Americanism, betrays our ideals, energizes Osama bin Laden, and our al-Qaeda adversaries. We conduct our "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, and confront Iran and now Yemen, as though our efforts are not being viewed through the lens of support for oppression of the indigenous people of Palestine.
It will take more conversation with your neighbors, Congress persons, and the present administration, to begin withholding support for the Israeli state as it is now conducting its affairs. Of course our President doesn't want to commit political suicide, nor do our congress persons want to lose their positions. But friends, it has to start somewhere. When Moses began to confront the Pharoah, he was not a popular guy. But he kept insisting that his people be "free" to follow their God. What seemed a hopeless endeavor finally yielded results.
I'm sending you the last half of Jim Wall's current blog. For the complete article, please go to. Better yet, subscribe to receive his material on a regular basis. The following then, is from Wall's blog:
His [Henry Siegman's] latest Nation essay,“Imposing Middle East Peace”, includes this cogent analysis:
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.
Our “special relationship” with Israel is unique in American foreign policy. We have funded and endorsed decades of illegal and immoral conduct by a nation claiming to be a democracy, while, in fact, it has hidden behind America’s protective screen, to build a racist state with policies antithetical to democratic values.
A compliant and controlled American media, a bought and paid for Congress, and a succession of presidents intimidated by both the media and the Congress, have allowed Israel to create a false image of a democracy seeking peace.
Israel’s current leaders believe they can continue to bamboozle the West into believing the state of Israel is so special that its colonialism is merely following the pioneering spirit of western colonial powers in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Israel just got to the party a little late. After World War II, colonialism was passe.
Before the 20th century and modern communications, colonialism was known as “expansion”. Exploitation of indigenous populations by Western powers was viewed as a race to power. May the empire with the superior ordnance win!
The American western plains and the jungles of Africa were not exposed to a 20th century technology that sees all and tells all.
Modern Israel’s founding parents knew that modernity had created a different climate for empire building. Winning the hearts and minds of the western world, and selling the West on the Israeli narrative, has always been as important to Israel as having a powerful American sponsor for its military and economic development.
Israel established its own “don’t ask, don’t tell”, agreement with the US. Don’t ask us, and don’t tell others, about our expansion plan and our Dimona nuclear program, and we will provide you with your very own colonial outpost in the heart of the Middle East.
Those Israeli founding parents created an ethnic cleansing plan which had to remain hidden, because after World War II, ethnic cleansing was no longer kosher.
It was not until Israel’s own New Historians, led by scholars like Ilan Pappe, began to dig into Israel’s pre-1947 plans to colonize Palestine, that outsiders could see the meticulous planning that allowed Israel to peddle itself as a new nation led by brave frontier fighters. Moshe Dayan meet Andrew Jackson.
Henry Siegman opens his Nation essay with some of that history:
Israel’s relentless drive to establish “facts on the ground” in the occupied West Bank, a drive that continues in violation of even the limited settlement freeze to which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu committed himself, seems finally to have succeeded in locking in the irreversibility of its colonial project.
As a result of that “achievement,” one that successive Israeli governments have long sought in order to preclude the possibility of a two-state solution, Israel has crossed the threshold from “the only democracy in the Middle East” to the only apartheid regime in the Western world.
To describe Israel as an apartheid state, is to attack Israel at its most vulnerable spot: its image as a democracy. To identify Israel with South African apartheid was a dangerous crack in the wall of ignorance behind which Israel has conducted its oppression of the Palestinian people. Siegman again:
When a state’s denial of the individual and national rights of a large part of its population becomes permanent, it ceases to be a democracy. When the reason for that double disenfranchisement is that population’s ethnic and religious identity, the state is practicing a form of apartheid, or racism, not much different from the one that characterized South Africa from 1948 to 1994.
What Israel has become, is what its founding fathers planned from the outset. Siegman explains:
The democratic dispensation that Israel provides for its mostly Jewish citizens cannot hide its changed character. By definition, democracy reserved for privileged citizens–while all others are kept behind checkpoints, barbed-wire fences and separation walls commanded by the Israeli army–is not democracy but its opposite.
The Jewish settlements, with their supporting infrastructure spanning the West Bank from east to west and north to south, are not a wild growth, like weeds in a garden. They have been carefully planned, financed and protected by successive Israeli governments and Israel’s military.
Their purpose has been to deny the Palestinian people independence and statehood–or to put it more precisely, to retain Israeli control of Palestine “from the river to the sea,” an objective that precludes the existence of a viable and sovereign Palestinian state east of Israel’s pre-1967 border.
Colonial enterprises conquer indigenous populations and make the land their own. Justice is not in their playbook; control is.
Facing such a formidable and intractable problem, how should Obama proceed? Henry Siegman believes:
Middle East peacemaking efforts will continue to fail, and the possibility of a two-state solution will disappear, if US policy continues to ignore developments on the ground in the occupied territories and within Israel, which now can be reversed only through outside intervention.
President Obama is uniquely positioned to help Israel reclaim Jewish and democratic ideals on which the state was founded – if he does not continue “politics as usual.”
In his current issue, he quotes from an article in NATION by Henry Siegman, a veteran Jewish author who is respected in the "peace camp" (though of course, not favored by Zionists).
America is oblivious to what is obvious to the rest of the world: that the US supports an Apartheid, exclusively Jewish nation which continues to disenfranchise the natives of the land.
In its relentless efforts to "settle" the entirety of Palestine, (at the expense of the natives), the former and present Zionist enterprise fuels anti-Americanism, betrays our ideals, energizes Osama bin Laden, and our al-Qaeda adversaries. We conduct our "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, and confront Iran and now Yemen, as though our efforts are not being viewed through the lens of support for oppression of the indigenous people of Palestine.
It will take more conversation with your neighbors, Congress persons, and the present administration, to begin withholding support for the Israeli state as it is now conducting its affairs. Of course our President doesn't want to commit political suicide, nor do our congress persons want to lose their positions. But friends, it has to start somewhere. When Moses began to confront the Pharoah, he was not a popular guy. But he kept insisting that his people be "free" to follow their God. What seemed a hopeless endeavor finally yielded results.
I'm sending you the last half of Jim Wall's current blog. For the complete article, please go to
His [Henry Siegman's] latest Nation essay,“Imposing Middle East Peace”, includes this cogent analysis:
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.
Our “special relationship” with Israel is unique in American foreign policy. We have funded and endorsed decades of illegal and immoral conduct by a nation claiming to be a democracy, while, in fact, it has hidden behind America’s protective screen, to build a racist state with policies antithetical to democratic values.
A compliant and controlled American media, a bought and paid for Congress, and a succession of presidents intimidated by both the media and the Congress, have allowed Israel to create a false image of a democracy seeking peace.
Israel’s current leaders believe they can continue to bamboozle the West into believing the state of Israel is so special that its colonialism is merely following the pioneering spirit of western colonial powers in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Israel just got to the party a little late. After World War II, colonialism was passe.
Before the 20th century and modern communications, colonialism was known as “expansion”. Exploitation of indigenous populations by Western powers was viewed as a race to power. May the empire with the superior ordnance win!
The American western plains and the jungles of Africa were not exposed to a 20th century technology that sees all and tells all.
Modern Israel’s founding parents knew that modernity had created a different climate for empire building. Winning the hearts and minds of the western world, and selling the West on the Israeli narrative, has always been as important to Israel as having a powerful American sponsor for its military and economic development.
Israel established its own “don’t ask, don’t tell”, agreement with the US. Don’t ask us, and don’t tell others, about our expansion plan and our Dimona nuclear program, and we will provide you with your very own colonial outpost in the heart of the Middle East.
Those Israeli founding parents created an ethnic cleansing plan which had to remain hidden, because after World War II, ethnic cleansing was no longer kosher.
It was not until Israel’s own New Historians, led by scholars like Ilan Pappe, began to dig into Israel’s pre-1947 plans to colonize Palestine, that outsiders could see the meticulous planning that allowed Israel to peddle itself as a new nation led by brave frontier fighters. Moshe Dayan meet Andrew Jackson.
Henry Siegman opens his Nation essay with some of that history:
Israel’s relentless drive to establish “facts on the ground” in the occupied West Bank, a drive that continues in violation of even the limited settlement freeze to which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu committed himself, seems finally to have succeeded in locking in the irreversibility of its colonial project.
As a result of that “achievement,” one that successive Israeli governments have long sought in order to preclude the possibility of a two-state solution, Israel has crossed the threshold from “the only democracy in the Middle East” to the only apartheid regime in the Western world.
To describe Israel as an apartheid state, is to attack Israel at its most vulnerable spot: its image as a democracy. To identify Israel with South African apartheid was a dangerous crack in the wall of ignorance behind which Israel has conducted its oppression of the Palestinian people. Siegman again:
When a state’s denial of the individual and national rights of a large part of its population becomes permanent, it ceases to be a democracy. When the reason for that double disenfranchisement is that population’s ethnic and religious identity, the state is practicing a form of apartheid, or racism, not much different from the one that characterized South Africa from 1948 to 1994.
What Israel has become, is what its founding fathers planned from the outset. Siegman explains:
The democratic dispensation that Israel provides for its mostly Jewish citizens cannot hide its changed character. By definition, democracy reserved for privileged citizens–while all others are kept behind checkpoints, barbed-wire fences and separation walls commanded by the Israeli army–is not democracy but its opposite.
The Jewish settlements, with their supporting infrastructure spanning the West Bank from east to west and north to south, are not a wild growth, like weeds in a garden. They have been carefully planned, financed and protected by successive Israeli governments and Israel’s military.
Their purpose has been to deny the Palestinian people independence and statehood–or to put it more precisely, to retain Israeli control of Palestine “from the river to the sea,” an objective that precludes the existence of a viable and sovereign Palestinian state east of Israel’s pre-1967 border.
Colonial enterprises conquer indigenous populations and make the land their own. Justice is not in their playbook; control is.
Facing such a formidable and intractable problem, how should Obama proceed? Henry Siegman believes:
Middle East peacemaking efforts will continue to fail, and the possibility of a two-state solution will disappear, if US policy continues to ignore developments on the ground in the occupied territories and within Israel, which now can be reversed only through outside intervention.
President Obama is uniquely positioned to help Israel reclaim Jewish and democratic ideals on which the state was founded – if he does not continue “politics as usual.”
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
More Israelis Joining BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions)
Momentum is building for inviting "Israel-loving Jews" from all over the world to participate in BDS.
Read what Udi Aloni writes to his Israelis compatriots.
Why I back Israel sanctions
Udi Aloni
Ynetnews (Opinion)
January 5, 2010 - 12:00am
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3829694,00.html
I find it appropriate that the Israeli public be notified of the emerging movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel (BDS), which has been growing at a breathtaking pace.
Following bewildered reports published by Yedioth Ahronoth journalist Sever Plocker, who noticed that BDS has moved from the circles of the radical western Left to the circles of the bourgeois centre, I can add that this is now true for Israel-loving Jews as well.
Obviously, this shift is taking place against the backdrop of Israel’s war on Gaza, waged one year ago, the publication of the Goldstone Report, and the local strain of apartheid policy nurtured by Israel, which differs from the old South African one in some aspects.
This policy has local makings and signature. It is not only an Israeli High Court of Justice ruling to evacuate Palestinian living in the east Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah from their homes, applying a “right of return for Jews only” rule, while Palestinians, on the other hand, are being denied this right.
It is also the denial of Palestinian rights to send Palestinian policemen to carry out a “targeted assassination” of Jewish terrorist Yaakov Teitel (it should be noted that we object to all extrajudicial executions), while the alleged Palestinians murderers of a Jewish rabbi in Samaria can be extrajudicially executed, with the ballistic weapon examination proving their guilt being performed retroactively by the executioners, not by a court of law (the appropriate instance in this case should be an international tribunal, since most Palestinians are sure that at least two of the three had nothing to do with the murder).
I am presenting these cases to illustrate the extreme inequality in our joint life, in this land, and emphasize the reasons behind the emergence of the popular global movement for solidarity with the Palestinian people. And please do not rush to your feet, protesting and chanting: “The whole world is against us, never mind, we shall overcome!”, because we shall not overcome.
The aforementioned violations of human rights are precisely the reason why many Jews all over the world have joined the BDS campaign, a key issue for those of us who are trying to prevent violence against Israel while simultaneously countering its arrogant and aggressive policies against the Palestinians living under its rule.
The head of the New School’s philosophy department (located in NYC) has argued that “Violence is never justified even if it is sometimes necessary”. This statement lays a heavy burden of guilt on numerous resistance movements all over the world, who have been compelled to resort to violence against occupying forces.
When the children in the Palestinian village of Bilin, whose land is being grabbed by Israel in broad daylight under the pretext of “lawful conduct”, using heavily armed IDF soldiers, throw stones at soldiers, the village elders tell them: “Your act of stone-throwing is totally justified resistance, but we have chosen non-violent resistance for this village, and therefore violence is unnecessary here”. As part of our support for this type of non-violent action in places like Bilin, and following forceful, violent IDF actions against the residents of the village, we, Israeli activists, have formulated our position in favor of BDS.
When the state quells the non-violent yet effective resistance of a right-less minority with violent unlawful means, then violent resistance to the military forces enforcing this oppression is justified. Indeed, such resistance may not always be necessary, may not always serve the goals of the struggle, and its shortcomings may outweigh its advantages, but it is still justified in principle.
In comparison, non-violent resistance in such instances is always justified and also always necessary. Regrettably, such resistance is not always possible.
Therefore, we must try to create the preconditions for non-violent resistance to emerge, in order to render violent resistance unnecessary.
The most provably-effective form of pressure known to us so far is BDS. Thus, BDS action does not amount to negative, counter-productive action, as many propagandists try to portray it. On the contrary, BDS action is a life-saving antidote to violence. It is an action of solidarity, partnership and joint progress. BDS action serves to preempt, in a non-violent manner, justified violent resistance aimed at attaining the same goals of justice, peace and equality.
If a critical mass of privileged Israeli citizens joins the non-violent struggle from the inside, standing shoulder to shoulder with the disenfranchised, perhaps outside pressure will no longer be necessary. The three very basic principles of BDS are:
* An immediate end of the occupation
* Full equality to all Palestinian citizens of the state of Israel
* Legal and moral Recognition of the Palestinian refugees’ right of return
(Obviously, each community’s position will be taken into consideration during the desired negotiations).
No right-wing lobby, not even the messianic-evangelical lobby, and no lawyer from the Alan Dershowitz school can hold back for long the global popular movement which wants to see an end to our local conflict and regional peace, according to the principles of international law, in the benefit of both peoples.
Read what Udi Aloni writes to his Israelis compatriots.
Why I back Israel sanctions
Udi Aloni
Ynetnews (Opinion)
January 5, 2010 - 12:00am
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3829694,00.html
I find it appropriate that the Israeli public be notified of the emerging movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel (BDS), which has been growing at a breathtaking pace.
Following bewildered reports published by Yedioth Ahronoth journalist Sever Plocker, who noticed that BDS has moved from the circles of the radical western Left to the circles of the bourgeois centre, I can add that this is now true for Israel-loving Jews as well.
Obviously, this shift is taking place against the backdrop of Israel’s war on Gaza, waged one year ago, the publication of the Goldstone Report, and the local strain of apartheid policy nurtured by Israel, which differs from the old South African one in some aspects.
This policy has local makings and signature. It is not only an Israeli High Court of Justice ruling to evacuate Palestinian living in the east Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah from their homes, applying a “right of return for Jews only” rule, while Palestinians, on the other hand, are being denied this right.
It is also the denial of Palestinian rights to send Palestinian policemen to carry out a “targeted assassination” of Jewish terrorist Yaakov Teitel (it should be noted that we object to all extrajudicial executions), while the alleged Palestinians murderers of a Jewish rabbi in Samaria can be extrajudicially executed, with the ballistic weapon examination proving their guilt being performed retroactively by the executioners, not by a court of law (the appropriate instance in this case should be an international tribunal, since most Palestinians are sure that at least two of the three had nothing to do with the murder).
I am presenting these cases to illustrate the extreme inequality in our joint life, in this land, and emphasize the reasons behind the emergence of the popular global movement for solidarity with the Palestinian people. And please do not rush to your feet, protesting and chanting: “The whole world is against us, never mind, we shall overcome!”, because we shall not overcome.
The aforementioned violations of human rights are precisely the reason why many Jews all over the world have joined the BDS campaign, a key issue for those of us who are trying to prevent violence against Israel while simultaneously countering its arrogant and aggressive policies against the Palestinians living under its rule.
The head of the New School’s philosophy department (located in NYC) has argued that “Violence is never justified even if it is sometimes necessary”. This statement lays a heavy burden of guilt on numerous resistance movements all over the world, who have been compelled to resort to violence against occupying forces.
When the children in the Palestinian village of Bilin, whose land is being grabbed by Israel in broad daylight under the pretext of “lawful conduct”, using heavily armed IDF soldiers, throw stones at soldiers, the village elders tell them: “Your act of stone-throwing is totally justified resistance, but we have chosen non-violent resistance for this village, and therefore violence is unnecessary here”. As part of our support for this type of non-violent action in places like Bilin, and following forceful, violent IDF actions against the residents of the village, we, Israeli activists, have formulated our position in favor of BDS.
When the state quells the non-violent yet effective resistance of a right-less minority with violent unlawful means, then violent resistance to the military forces enforcing this oppression is justified. Indeed, such resistance may not always be necessary, may not always serve the goals of the struggle, and its shortcomings may outweigh its advantages, but it is still justified in principle.
In comparison, non-violent resistance in such instances is always justified and also always necessary. Regrettably, such resistance is not always possible.
Therefore, we must try to create the preconditions for non-violent resistance to emerge, in order to render violent resistance unnecessary.
The most provably-effective form of pressure known to us so far is BDS. Thus, BDS action does not amount to negative, counter-productive action, as many propagandists try to portray it. On the contrary, BDS action is a life-saving antidote to violence. It is an action of solidarity, partnership and joint progress. BDS action serves to preempt, in a non-violent manner, justified violent resistance aimed at attaining the same goals of justice, peace and equality.
If a critical mass of privileged Israeli citizens joins the non-violent struggle from the inside, standing shoulder to shoulder with the disenfranchised, perhaps outside pressure will no longer be necessary. The three very basic principles of BDS are:
* An immediate end of the occupation
* Full equality to all Palestinian citizens of the state of Israel
* Legal and moral Recognition of the Palestinian refugees’ right of return
(Obviously, each community’s position will be taken into consideration during the desired negotiations).
No right-wing lobby, not even the messianic-evangelical lobby, and no lawyer from the Alan Dershowitz school can hold back for long the global popular movement which wants to see an end to our local conflict and regional peace, according to the principles of international law, in the benefit of both peoples.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
The Cairo Declaration: End the Occupation!
January 1, 2010
Gaza Freedom Marchers issue the "Cairo Declaration" to end Israeli
Apartheid
(Cairo) Gaza Freedom Marchers approved today a declaration aimed at
accelerating the global campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions
(BDS) against Israeli Apartheid.
Roughly 1400 activists from 43 countries converged in Cairo on their
way to Gaza to join with Palestinians marching to break Israel's
illegal siege. They were prevented from entering Gaza by the Egyptian
authorities.
As a result, the Freedom Marchers remained in Cairo. They staged a
series of nonviolent actions aimed at pressuring the international
community to end the siege as one step in the larger struggle to secure
justice for Palestinians throughout historic Palestine.
This declaration arose from those actions:
End Israeli Apartheid
Cairo Declaration
January 1, 2010
We, international delegates meeting in Cairo during the Gaza Freedom
March 2009 in collective response to an initiative from the South
African delegation, state:
In view of:
o Israel's ongoing collective punishment of Palestinians through
the illegal occupation and siege of Gaza;
o the illegal occupation of the West Bank, including East
Jerusalem, and the continued construction of the illegal Apartheid Wall
and settlements;
o the new Wall under construction by Egypt and theUS which will
tighten even further the siege of Gaza;
o the contempt for Palestinian democracy shown byIsrael, the US,
Canada, the EU and others after the Palestinian elections of 2006;
o the war crimes committed by Israel during the invasion of Gaza
one year ago;
o the continuing discrimination and repression faced by
Palestinians within Israel;
o and the continuing exile of millions of Palestinian refugees;
o all of which oppressive acts are based ultimately on the Zionist
ideology which underpins Israel;
o in the knowledge that our own governments havegiven Israel
direct economic, financial, military and diplomatic support and allowed
it to behave with impunity;
o and mindful of the United Nations Declaration onthe Rights of
Indigenous People (2007)
We reaffirm our commitment to:
Palestinian Self-Determination
Ending the Occupation
Equal Rights for All within historic Palestine
The full Right of Return for Palestinian refugees
We therefore reaffirm our commitment to the United Palestinian call of
July 2005 for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) to compel Israel
to comply with international law.
To that end, we call for and wish to help initiate a global mass,
democratic anti-apartheid movement to work in full consultation with
Palestinian civil society to implement the Palestinian call for BDS.
Mindful of the many strong similarities between apartheid Israel and
the former apartheid regime in South Africa, we propose:
1) An international speaking tour in the first 6months of 2010 by
Palestinian and South African trade unionists and civil society
activists, to be joined by trade unionists and activists committed to
this programme within the countries toured, to take mass education on
BDS directly to the trade union membership and wider public
internationally;
2) Participation in the Israeli Apartheid Week inMarch 2010;
3) A systematic unified approach to the boycott ofIsraeli
products, involving consumers, workers and their unions in the retail,
warehousing, and transportation sectors;
4) Developing the Academic, Cultural and Sports boycott;
5) Campaigns to encourage divestment of trade union and other
pension funds from companies directly implicated in the Occupation
and/or the Israeli military industries;
6) Legal actions targeting the external recruitment of soldiers to
serve in the Israeli military, and the prosecution of Israeli
government war criminals; coordination of Citizen's Arrest Bureaux to
identify, campaign and seek to prosecute Israeli war criminals; support
for the Goldstone Report and the implementation of its recommendations;
7) Campaigns against charitable status of the Jewish National Fund
(JNF).
We appeal to organisations and individuals committed to this
declaration to sign it and work with us to make it a reality.
Please e-mail us at cairodec@gmail. com
Gaza Freedom Marchers issue the "Cairo Declaration" to end Israeli
Apartheid
(Cairo) Gaza Freedom Marchers approved today a declaration aimed at
accelerating the global campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions
(BDS) against Israeli Apartheid.
Roughly 1400 activists from 43 countries converged in Cairo on their
way to Gaza to join with Palestinians marching to break Israel's
illegal siege. They were prevented from entering Gaza by the Egyptian
authorities.
As a result, the Freedom Marchers remained in Cairo. They staged a
series of nonviolent actions aimed at pressuring the international
community to end the siege as one step in the larger struggle to secure
justice for Palestinians throughout historic Palestine.
This declaration arose from those actions:
End Israeli Apartheid
Cairo Declaration
January 1, 2010
We, international delegates meeting in Cairo during the Gaza Freedom
March 2009 in collective response to an initiative from the South
African delegation, state:
In view of:
o Israel's ongoing collective punishment of Palestinians through
the illegal occupation and siege of Gaza;
o the illegal occupation of the West Bank, including East
Jerusalem, and the continued construction of the illegal Apartheid Wall
and settlements;
o the new Wall under construction by Egypt and theUS which will
tighten even further the siege of Gaza;
o the contempt for Palestinian democracy shown byIsrael, the US,
Canada, the EU and others after the Palestinian elections of 2006;
o the war crimes committed by Israel during the invasion of Gaza
one year ago;
o the continuing discrimination and repression faced by
Palestinians within Israel;
o and the continuing exile of millions of Palestinian refugees;
o all of which oppressive acts are based ultimately on the Zionist
ideology which underpins Israel;
o in the knowledge that our own governments havegiven Israel
direct economic, financial, military and diplomatic support and allowed
it to behave with impunity;
o and mindful of the United Nations Declaration onthe Rights of
Indigenous People (2007)
We reaffirm our commitment to:
Palestinian Self-Determination
Ending the Occupation
Equal Rights for All within historic Palestine
The full Right of Return for Palestinian refugees
We therefore reaffirm our commitment to the United Palestinian call of
July 2005 for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) to compel Israel
to comply with international law.
To that end, we call for and wish to help initiate a global mass,
democratic anti-apartheid movement to work in full consultation with
Palestinian civil society to implement the Palestinian call for BDS.
Mindful of the many strong similarities between apartheid Israel and
the former apartheid regime in South Africa, we propose:
1) An international speaking tour in the first 6months of 2010 by
Palestinian and South African trade unionists and civil society
activists, to be joined by trade unionists and activists committed to
this programme within the countries toured, to take mass education on
BDS directly to the trade union membership and wider public
internationally;
2) Participation in the Israeli Apartheid Week inMarch 2010;
3) A systematic unified approach to the boycott ofIsraeli
products, involving consumers, workers and their unions in the retail,
warehousing, and transportation sectors;
4) Developing the Academic, Cultural and Sports boycott;
5) Campaigns to encourage divestment of trade union and other
pension funds from companies directly implicated in the Occupation
and/or the Israeli military industries;
6) Legal actions targeting the external recruitment of soldiers to
serve in the Israeli military, and the prosecution of Israeli
government war criminals; coordination of Citizen's Arrest Bureaux to
identify, campaign and seek to prosecute Israeli war criminals; support
for the Goldstone Report and the implementation of its recommendations;
7) Campaigns against charitable status of the Jewish National Fund
(JNF).
We appeal to organisations and individuals committed to this
declaration to sign it and work with us to make it a reality.
Please e-mail us at cairodec@gmail. com
Monday, December 21, 2009
Another Sensible Plan: Where is "Good Will?"
Steps to create an Israel-PalestineJonathan Kuttab
The Los Angeles Times (Opinion) December 20, 2009 - 12:00am
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kuttab20-2009dec20,0,328957...
For a while, it seemed that a two-state solution might actually be achievable and that a sovereign Palestinian state would be created in the West Bank and Gaza, allowing Jews and Palestinians at last to go their separate ways. But these days, that looks less and less likely.
With Israel in total control of the territory from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River and unwilling to relinquish a significant part of the land, it's time to consider the possibility that the current situation -- one state, in effect -- will continue. And although Jewish Israelis may control it now, birthrates suggest that, sooner or later, Jews will again be a minority in the territory.
What happens at that point is unclear, but unless continued military occupation and all-out apartheid is the desired path, now may be the time for Israelis to start putting in place the kinds of legal and constitutional safeguards that will protect all minorities, now and in the future, in a single democratic state of Israel-Palestine. This is both the right thing and the smart thing to do.
In recent years the idea of a one-state solution has been anathema to Israelis and their supporters worldwide. This has been fueled by the fear of the "demographic threat" posed by the high Palestinian birthrate. Indeed, many Israeli supporters of a two-state solution came to that position out of fear of this demographic threat rather than sympathy with Palestinian national aspirations.
At the root of their fear was the belief that despite Israel's best efforts to push Palestinians from land and property and to import Jewish settlers in their stead, the Arab population would keep climbing. And that, when the Arabs reached the 51% mark, the state of Israel would collapse, its Jewish character would disappear and its population would dwindle into obscurity.
Yet that scenario is not necessarily the inevitable result of either demography or democracy. Religious and ethnic minorities have successfully thrived in many countries and managed to retain their distinctive culture and identity, and succeeded in being effective and sometimes even dominant influences in those countries. Those who believe in coexistence must begin to seriously think of the legal and constitutional mechanisms needed to safeguard the rights of a Jewish minority in Israel-Palestine.
It is true that the experience of Israel with its Palestinian minority does not offer a comforting prospect. The behavior of the Jewish majority toward the Palestinian citizens of Israel has not been magnanimous or tolerant. Where ethnic cleansing was insufficient, military rule, land confiscation and systemic discrimination have all been employed. The relationship was not helped by the actions of Palestinians outside Israel who resented losing their homeland or by the behavior of some Arab countries, neither of which accepted the imposed Jewish character of Israel.
Yet it is possible, especially during this period when Jews are still the majority in power in Israel, to begin to envision the type of guarantees they may require in the future. Other countries have wrestled with this problem, and while each situation is different, the problem is by no means unprecedented.
Zionism will ultimately need to redefine its goals and aspirations, this time without ignoring or seeking to dispossess the indigenous Palestinian population. Palestinians will also have to deal with this reality, and accept -- even enthusiastically endorse -- the elements required to make Jews truly feel at peace in the single new state that will be the home of both people.
Strong, institutionalized mechanisms will be needed to prevent the "tyranny of 51%." A bicameral legislature, for example, should be installed, in which the lower house is elected by proportional representation but the upper house has a composition that safeguards both peoples equally, regardless of their numbers in the population. A rotating presidency may be preferable to designating certain positions for each minority (as in Lebanon). And constitutional provisions that safeguard the rights of minorities should be enshrined in a constitution that can only be amended or altered by both houses of parliament with a large (80%) majority.
Both Hebrew and Arabic will be designated as official languages, and governmental offices will be closed for Jewish, Muslim and Christian holidays. New laws will be enacted that strengthen the secular civil courts in personal status matters, while leaving some leeway for all religious communities to have a say in lawmaking, including Reform and Conservative Jews who currently chafe under the Orthodox monopoly over Jewish personal status matters in Israel. Educational systems that honor and cater to the different communities will give each a measure of control over the education of its children within a national system that maintains professional standards for all publicly-funded schools. Strong constitutional provisions will be enacted to prohibit discrimination in all spheres of life, while independent courts will be enabled to enforce such provisions.
Many on both sides, Israeli and Palestinian, will reject this line of thinking, and in all cases, it is clear that a lot of goodwill and much careful thinking is necessary. But as the options keep narrowing for all participants, we need to start thinking of how we can live together, rather than insist on dying apart.
Jonathan Kuttab is a Palestinian attorney and human rights activist. He is a co-founder of Al Haq and the Mandela Institute for Political Prisoners.
The Los Angeles Times (Opinion) December 20, 2009 - 12:00am
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kuttab20-2009dec20,0,328957...
For a while, it seemed that a two-state solution might actually be achievable and that a sovereign Palestinian state would be created in the West Bank and Gaza, allowing Jews and Palestinians at last to go their separate ways. But these days, that looks less and less likely.
With Israel in total control of the territory from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River and unwilling to relinquish a significant part of the land, it's time to consider the possibility that the current situation -- one state, in effect -- will continue. And although Jewish Israelis may control it now, birthrates suggest that, sooner or later, Jews will again be a minority in the territory.
What happens at that point is unclear, but unless continued military occupation and all-out apartheid is the desired path, now may be the time for Israelis to start putting in place the kinds of legal and constitutional safeguards that will protect all minorities, now and in the future, in a single democratic state of Israel-Palestine. This is both the right thing and the smart thing to do.
In recent years the idea of a one-state solution has been anathema to Israelis and their supporters worldwide. This has been fueled by the fear of the "demographic threat" posed by the high Palestinian birthrate. Indeed, many Israeli supporters of a two-state solution came to that position out of fear of this demographic threat rather than sympathy with Palestinian national aspirations.
At the root of their fear was the belief that despite Israel's best efforts to push Palestinians from land and property and to import Jewish settlers in their stead, the Arab population would keep climbing. And that, when the Arabs reached the 51% mark, the state of Israel would collapse, its Jewish character would disappear and its population would dwindle into obscurity.
Yet that scenario is not necessarily the inevitable result of either demography or democracy. Religious and ethnic minorities have successfully thrived in many countries and managed to retain their distinctive culture and identity, and succeeded in being effective and sometimes even dominant influences in those countries. Those who believe in coexistence must begin to seriously think of the legal and constitutional mechanisms needed to safeguard the rights of a Jewish minority in Israel-Palestine.
It is true that the experience of Israel with its Palestinian minority does not offer a comforting prospect. The behavior of the Jewish majority toward the Palestinian citizens of Israel has not been magnanimous or tolerant. Where ethnic cleansing was insufficient, military rule, land confiscation and systemic discrimination have all been employed. The relationship was not helped by the actions of Palestinians outside Israel who resented losing their homeland or by the behavior of some Arab countries, neither of which accepted the imposed Jewish character of Israel.
Yet it is possible, especially during this period when Jews are still the majority in power in Israel, to begin to envision the type of guarantees they may require in the future. Other countries have wrestled with this problem, and while each situation is different, the problem is by no means unprecedented.
Zionism will ultimately need to redefine its goals and aspirations, this time without ignoring or seeking to dispossess the indigenous Palestinian population. Palestinians will also have to deal with this reality, and accept -- even enthusiastically endorse -- the elements required to make Jews truly feel at peace in the single new state that will be the home of both people.
Strong, institutionalized mechanisms will be needed to prevent the "tyranny of 51%." A bicameral legislature, for example, should be installed, in which the lower house is elected by proportional representation but the upper house has a composition that safeguards both peoples equally, regardless of their numbers in the population. A rotating presidency may be preferable to designating certain positions for each minority (as in Lebanon). And constitutional provisions that safeguard the rights of minorities should be enshrined in a constitution that can only be amended or altered by both houses of parliament with a large (80%) majority.
Both Hebrew and Arabic will be designated as official languages, and governmental offices will be closed for Jewish, Muslim and Christian holidays. New laws will be enacted that strengthen the secular civil courts in personal status matters, while leaving some leeway for all religious communities to have a say in lawmaking, including Reform and Conservative Jews who currently chafe under the Orthodox monopoly over Jewish personal status matters in Israel. Educational systems that honor and cater to the different communities will give each a measure of control over the education of its children within a national system that maintains professional standards for all publicly-funded schools. Strong constitutional provisions will be enacted to prohibit discrimination in all spheres of life, while independent courts will be enabled to enforce such provisions.
Many on both sides, Israeli and Palestinian, will reject this line of thinking, and in all cases, it is clear that a lot of goodwill and much careful thinking is necessary. But as the options keep narrowing for all participants, we need to start thinking of how we can live together, rather than insist on dying apart.
Jonathan Kuttab is a Palestinian attorney and human rights activist. He is a co-founder of Al Haq and the Mandela Institute for Political Prisoners.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
When Will It Be Time for the Palestinians?
Mustafa Bargouti writes an op-ed in the Dec. 17 issue of the NY Times.
His brother Marwan, languishes in an Israeli jail (remember Nelson Mandela?). The US media has convinced the majority of US citizens that it is Palestinian "violence" and "terrorism" that prevents "peace" from happening.
Here is another point of view vying for a place at the US media table. It is not being believed (much) as of this reading. But will the time come when it will be believed and acted upon? Time will tell. JRK
When Will It Be Our Time?
Mustafa Barghouthi
The New York Times (Opinion)
December 17, 2009 - 12:00am
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/opinion/17iht-edbarghouthi.html?ref=global
I have lived my entire adult life under occupation, with Israelis holding ultimate control over my movement and daily life.
When young Israeli police officers force me to sit on the cold ground and soldiers beat me during a peaceful protest, I smolder. No human being should be compelled to sit on the ground while exercising rights taken for granted throughout the West.
It is with deepening concern that I recognize the Obama administration is not yet capable of standing up to Israel and the pro-Israel lobby. Our dream of freedom is being crushed under the weight of immovable and constantly expanding Israeli settlements.
Days ago, the State Department spokesman, Ian Kelly, managed only to term such illegal building “dismaying.” The Israeli foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, stands up and walks out on the U.S. envoy, George Mitchell, every time the American envoy mentions East Jerusalem.
And Javier Solana, just prior to completing his stint as European Union foreign policy chief, claimed Palestinian moves toward statehood “have to be done with time, with calm, in an appropriate moment.” He adds: “I don’t think today is the moment to talk about that.”
When, precisely, is a good time for Palestinian freedom? I call on Mr. Solana’s replacement, Catherine Ashton, to take concrete actions to press for Palestinian freedom rather than postpone it.
If Israel insists on hewing to antiquated notions of determining the date of another people’s freedom then it is incumbent on Palestinians to organize ourselves and highlight the moral repugnance of such an outlook.
Through decades of occupation and dispossession, 90 percent of the Palestinian struggle has been nonviolent, with the vast majority of Palestinians supporting this method of struggle. Today, growing numbers of Palestinians are participating in organized nonviolent resistance.
In the face of European and American inaction, it is crucial that we continue to revive our culture of collective activism by vigorously and nonviolently resisting Israel’s domination over us.
These are actions that every man, woman and child can take. The nonviolent movement is being built in the villages of Jayyous, Bilin and Naalin where Israel’s segregation wall threatens to erase productive village life.
President Obama, perhaps unwittingly, encouraged this effort when he called for Palestinian nonviolence in his Cairo speech. “Palestinians,” he said, “must abandon violence. … For centuries, black people in America suffered…the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America’s founding.”
Yet without public American complaint, the Israeli military has killed and injured many nonviolent Palestinians during Obama’s 10 months in office, most notably Bassem Abu Rahme who was killed in April by an Israeli high-velocity teargas canister. American citizen Tristan Anderson was critically injured by the Israeli Army in March by a similar projectile and remains in a deep coma. Both men were protesting illegal Israeli land seizures and Israel’s wall. Hundreds more are unknown to the outside world.
A new generation of Palestinian leaders is attempting to speak to the world in the language of a nonviolent campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions, precisely as Martin Luther King Jr. and thousands of African-Americans did with the Montgomery bus boycott in the mid-1950s.
We are equally right to use the tactic to advance our rights. The same world that rejects all use of Palestinian violence, even clear self-defense, surely ought not begrudge us the nonviolence employed by men such as King and Gandhi.
Western lethargy means the clock may run out on the two-state solution. If so, the fault will rest with the failure to halt Israeli settlement activity. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s declaration that settlement construction will continue in East Jerusalem, with government buildings in the West Bank and on thousands of West Bank housing units already under development makes a mockery of the term “freeze.”
We Palestinians are completely accustomed to — and unwilling to accept — such caveats from Mr. Netanyahu.
The demise of the two-state solution will only lead to a new struggle for equal rights, within one state. Israel, which tragically favors supremacy rather than integration with its Palestinian neighbors, will have brought the new struggle on itself by relentlessly pushing the settlement enterprise. No one can say it was not warned.
Eventually, we will be free in our own country, either within the two-state solution or in a new integrated state.
There comes a time when people cannot take injustice any more, and this time has come to Palestine.
His brother Marwan, languishes in an Israeli jail (remember Nelson Mandela?). The US media has convinced the majority of US citizens that it is Palestinian "violence" and "terrorism" that prevents "peace" from happening.
Here is another point of view vying for a place at the US media table. It is not being believed (much) as of this reading. But will the time come when it will be believed and acted upon? Time will tell. JRK
When Will It Be Our Time?
Mustafa Barghouthi
The New York Times (Opinion)
December 17, 2009 - 12:00am
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/opinion/17iht-edbarghouthi.html?ref=global
I have lived my entire adult life under occupation, with Israelis holding ultimate control over my movement and daily life.
When young Israeli police officers force me to sit on the cold ground and soldiers beat me during a peaceful protest, I smolder. No human being should be compelled to sit on the ground while exercising rights taken for granted throughout the West.
It is with deepening concern that I recognize the Obama administration is not yet capable of standing up to Israel and the pro-Israel lobby. Our dream of freedom is being crushed under the weight of immovable and constantly expanding Israeli settlements.
Days ago, the State Department spokesman, Ian Kelly, managed only to term such illegal building “dismaying.” The Israeli foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, stands up and walks out on the U.S. envoy, George Mitchell, every time the American envoy mentions East Jerusalem.
And Javier Solana, just prior to completing his stint as European Union foreign policy chief, claimed Palestinian moves toward statehood “have to be done with time, with calm, in an appropriate moment.” He adds: “I don’t think today is the moment to talk about that.”
When, precisely, is a good time for Palestinian freedom? I call on Mr. Solana’s replacement, Catherine Ashton, to take concrete actions to press for Palestinian freedom rather than postpone it.
If Israel insists on hewing to antiquated notions of determining the date of another people’s freedom then it is incumbent on Palestinians to organize ourselves and highlight the moral repugnance of such an outlook.
Through decades of occupation and dispossession, 90 percent of the Palestinian struggle has been nonviolent, with the vast majority of Palestinians supporting this method of struggle. Today, growing numbers of Palestinians are participating in organized nonviolent resistance.
In the face of European and American inaction, it is crucial that we continue to revive our culture of collective activism by vigorously and nonviolently resisting Israel’s domination over us.
These are actions that every man, woman and child can take. The nonviolent movement is being built in the villages of Jayyous, Bilin and Naalin where Israel’s segregation wall threatens to erase productive village life.
President Obama, perhaps unwittingly, encouraged this effort when he called for Palestinian nonviolence in his Cairo speech. “Palestinians,” he said, “must abandon violence. … For centuries, black people in America suffered…the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America’s founding.”
Yet without public American complaint, the Israeli military has killed and injured many nonviolent Palestinians during Obama’s 10 months in office, most notably Bassem Abu Rahme who was killed in April by an Israeli high-velocity teargas canister. American citizen Tristan Anderson was critically injured by the Israeli Army in March by a similar projectile and remains in a deep coma. Both men were protesting illegal Israeli land seizures and Israel’s wall. Hundreds more are unknown to the outside world.
A new generation of Palestinian leaders is attempting to speak to the world in the language of a nonviolent campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions, precisely as Martin Luther King Jr. and thousands of African-Americans did with the Montgomery bus boycott in the mid-1950s.
We are equally right to use the tactic to advance our rights. The same world that rejects all use of Palestinian violence, even clear self-defense, surely ought not begrudge us the nonviolence employed by men such as King and Gandhi.
Western lethargy means the clock may run out on the two-state solution. If so, the fault will rest with the failure to halt Israeli settlement activity. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s declaration that settlement construction will continue in East Jerusalem, with government buildings in the West Bank and on thousands of West Bank housing units already under development makes a mockery of the term “freeze.”
We Palestinians are completely accustomed to — and unwilling to accept — such caveats from Mr. Netanyahu.
The demise of the two-state solution will only lead to a new struggle for equal rights, within one state. Israel, which tragically favors supremacy rather than integration with its Palestinian neighbors, will have brought the new struggle on itself by relentlessly pushing the settlement enterprise. No one can say it was not warned.
Eventually, we will be free in our own country, either within the two-state solution or in a new integrated state.
There comes a time when people cannot take injustice any more, and this time has come to Palestine.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Jesus and Barack: A Comparison
Jesus and Barack Obama
On Resisting “Evil”
A comparison of the teachings and actions of Jesus and the teaching and actions of President Barack Obama, in light of the “troop surge” in Afghanistan and his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway, December 10, 2009
US President Obama was on the defensive in Oslo. He sheepishly admitted his achievements for “peace” were “slight”, especially when compared to others like Martin Luther King Jr., his hero from a previous generation (and also a Peace Prize winner).
We will look at his attempt to justify perpetrating the “just war” in Afghanistan and pose the question: “What would Jesus do?” in dealing with rouges who refused to “adhere to standards that govern the use of force” (para. 21).
He made a point that the 9/11 attacks on American soil originated “from Afghanistan” (para 48) with the strong implication that that government officially sanctioned or permitted it to happen and that therefore, the US has a right to “self-defense”. (What he failed to mention is that Al Qaeda, the self-declared foe of the US, has never been tied to any nation. It is a trans-national movement. Thus attacking a country is suspect, to say nothing of fruitless, with little or no hope of “winning” the “war”).
And besides, he went on to say, as “the world’s sole military superpower” (para 16), we defend not only US interests, but “global security” as well (para 17), (just as we did for European nations during WW II). America is involved in a “conflict we did not seek . . . in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks” (para 3).
He looks with favor on the teaching and actions of Jesus, as espoused by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. But only up to a point. He reserves the right to “use force” (para 13) and “the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation” (para 21). He lauds the way of nonviolence, even saying he is a “living testimony to the moral force of nonviolence” [of Martin Luther King Jr.].
In para 12, he claims not to bring a “definitive solution to the problems of war”, blatantly ignoring that a “Way” to peace has clearly been brought, taught, and lived out by his confessed “Leader”, Jesus of Nazareth. How can he argue there is no other “way” than to engage, as a last resort, in violence to counter violence? His Christian brothers and sisters must shake their heads in grief that the “Way” of our common Master is so finally dismissed. In not being “guided by their [Gandhi, King, and Jesus], examples alone” (para 15), he chooses to be guided by the oldest “way” in history: violence to be countered by violence as the only real way to “peace”. This lie of our Adversary (The Evil One) is universally acclaimed and practiced. Kill or be killed is the law of the jungle; it is not the Way of Jesus.
Can a nation’s leader choose nonviolent measures to combat “Evil”? Well, yes, he responds:
* 1) using international institutions like the UN (para 17),
* 2) living by the “standards that govern the use of force” (para 21),
* 3) using tough sanctions with rouge states (para 31 – 34);
* 4) protecting the “human rights” of individual citizens and in nation states (para 35-42);
* 5) committing to economic security and development for people everywhere (para 43, 44); and
* 6) expanding our “moral imagination” (instead of killing people by the supposed authority of “God” (para 45 – 54). (When individuals take the power of the sword to themselves, they attempt what only the “state” has authority to do).
Let it be said that Jesus, Peter, and Paul, (to name a few biblical characters) completely accepted the policing authority and power of nation-states (Matt. 20:25, I Pet. 2:13, 14; Rom. 13:1-7). (“Governors are sent by [God] to punish those who do wrong” (I Pet. 2:14). Nonviolence (“love, faith”, para’s 48 – 51) may not be “practical or possible in every circumstance” (para 50). He states as axiomatic that “A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies” (para. 15) yet lauds Pope John Paul’s “engagement with Poland” that stood down Russian oppression and President Nixon’s dealing with “the enemy” in China at the height of the Cold War without bloodshed. The “love” and “faith” [of Gandhi and King] “must always be the North star that guides us on our journey” (para 50). He lauds “love” and “faith” and “engagement” but retains the “right” to act violently.
Yet, in typical Barack Obama fashion, he wants it both ways. He wants the application of “love”, but not too radically if you please. He doesn’t trust it. He can’t bring himself to say, “It is not practical or possible”. All he can say is, “It may not be practical or possible” (para 50). Sometimes the use of force is preferable really to confront evil is what he really is saying. (We are glad he at least struggles with this).
President Obama states, “I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naive, in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King” (para 14). Nor does he want to dismiss “love” and “faith” as “silly or naïve” (para. 51). Yet, that is exactly what he does when he talks and acts as though nonviolent resistance is inappropriate when the threat to our “security” calls for military action. It is here he parts with Jesus, (Gandhi and King) who do not apply (nonviolent) “love” selectively but consistently.
The “just war” theory does not come from Jesus. It comes first from St. Augustine, as an attempt to get (Christian) rulers to abide by “standards” (proportionality, as self-defense, protecting non-combatants, hoped for “success”, etc.) War has always been justified by combatants on either side. The “just war” is like Moses giving spouses permission to divorce. “War” was never what was meant to be between persons or among nations! Jesus had enemies. He refused to be an enemy. He engaged enemies. He wanted the best for enemies. He loved enemies, even when they were determined to destroy him.
Even in the moment of greatest danger to himself personally (and his disciples), Jesus did not argue that he had a right to “self-defense”. At no point did he surround himself with a militia to insist on or impose the “rightness” of his “Way”. His was a completely nonviolent approach to “enemies”. It is not relevant nor true that Jesus was acting uniquely for himself and his mission, as though his example does not apply to his followers at that time or for succeeding generations. We are to “love” our enemies and do good to those who abuse and “hate” us. This never justifies the use of force (violence).
That this way is not popular or adopted by leaders like Al Qaeda or the USA (as being too naïve or passive), does not take away from its application or relevance for Jesus’ followers in threatening situations or circumstances. There is a difference between the way of empire the “Way” of Jesus of Nazareth, a difference being blurred all too often. Alas, we are all “Constantinian Christians”, descendants of the Roman emperor who co-opted Jesus to justify wars against “the enemy” and ensure our “security”.
Finally, Mr. Obama asks us to live by his example, as he speaks of “the mother [his mother and grandmother] facing punishing poverty (who) still takes time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams” (end of the second to the last paragraph, para 53). Here then, is Mr. Obama’s “faith”:
We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that—for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work on Earth” (last para).
This sounds so noble and bracing. Mr. Obama thus sees himself and the US as the guarantor of “Global Security”, gathering up willing nations to work for the great Pax Americana, using Jesus’ nonviolent “love” selectively and insisting on the right to use force (of course, as a last resort) on those who would do the US (and our “friends”) harm.
In this way, the American version of empire will pass the way of all empires, of King David, of Babylon, of Persia, of Alexander the Great, of Rome, and yes, the Third Reich. In being true to King Herod and Pontius Pilate, he will be false to Jesus, Gandhi and King.
There is a “Way” to walk beyond the “Nation” as ultimate good, beyond the truism that “nation will fight nation, and ruler will fight ruler, over and over” (Matt. 24:7). It is the “Way” made crystal clear by Jesus and vindicated by God in his victory over self-aggrandizement and death.
Followers of Jesus will seek to be true to our Leader’s nonviolent Way of loving enemies, living generously toward others, even those who hate us (Matt. 5:38-48). When “the enemy is hungry, feed him; when he’s thirsty, give him a drink. . .Don’t let evil get the best of you; get the best of evil by doing good” (The Message, Rom. 12:20,21).
Any other “way” to peace, especially the use of (violent) force to counter “evil” leads to ever widening circles of vengeance, further injustices and destruction. Faith, hope and love are not to be applied selectively. They are to be applied consistently, completely, and with no coercion. Nonviolent, active resistance IS the “Way”. There is no “way” to peace by violent action. Active, nonviolent resistance is the “Way” to peace.
On Resisting “Evil”
A comparison of the teachings and actions of Jesus and the teaching and actions of President Barack Obama, in light of the “troop surge” in Afghanistan and his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway, December 10, 2009
US President Obama was on the defensive in Oslo. He sheepishly admitted his achievements for “peace” were “slight”, especially when compared to others like Martin Luther King Jr., his hero from a previous generation (and also a Peace Prize winner).
We will look at his attempt to justify perpetrating the “just war” in Afghanistan and pose the question: “What would Jesus do?” in dealing with rouges who refused to “adhere to standards that govern the use of force” (para. 21).
He made a point that the 9/11 attacks on American soil originated “from Afghanistan” (para 48) with the strong implication that that government officially sanctioned or permitted it to happen and that therefore, the US has a right to “self-defense”. (What he failed to mention is that Al Qaeda, the self-declared foe of the US, has never been tied to any nation. It is a trans-national movement. Thus attacking a country is suspect, to say nothing of fruitless, with little or no hope of “winning” the “war”).
And besides, he went on to say, as “the world’s sole military superpower” (para 16), we defend not only US interests, but “global security” as well (para 17), (just as we did for European nations during WW II). America is involved in a “conflict we did not seek . . . in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks” (para 3).
He looks with favor on the teaching and actions of Jesus, as espoused by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. But only up to a point. He reserves the right to “use force” (para 13) and “the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation” (para 21). He lauds the way of nonviolence, even saying he is a “living testimony to the moral force of nonviolence” [of Martin Luther King Jr.].
In para 12, he claims not to bring a “definitive solution to the problems of war”, blatantly ignoring that a “Way” to peace has clearly been brought, taught, and lived out by his confessed “Leader”, Jesus of Nazareth. How can he argue there is no other “way” than to engage, as a last resort, in violence to counter violence? His Christian brothers and sisters must shake their heads in grief that the “Way” of our common Master is so finally dismissed. In not being “guided by their [Gandhi, King, and Jesus], examples alone” (para 15), he chooses to be guided by the oldest “way” in history: violence to be countered by violence as the only real way to “peace”. This lie of our Adversary (The Evil One) is universally acclaimed and practiced. Kill or be killed is the law of the jungle; it is not the Way of Jesus.
Can a nation’s leader choose nonviolent measures to combat “Evil”? Well, yes, he responds:
* 1) using international institutions like the UN (para 17),
* 2) living by the “standards that govern the use of force” (para 21),
* 3) using tough sanctions with rouge states (para 31 – 34);
* 4) protecting the “human rights” of individual citizens and in nation states (para 35-42);
* 5) committing to economic security and development for people everywhere (para 43, 44); and
* 6) expanding our “moral imagination” (instead of killing people by the supposed authority of “God” (para 45 – 54). (When individuals take the power of the sword to themselves, they attempt what only the “state” has authority to do).
Let it be said that Jesus, Peter, and Paul, (to name a few biblical characters) completely accepted the policing authority and power of nation-states (Matt. 20:25, I Pet. 2:13, 14; Rom. 13:1-7). (“Governors are sent by [God] to punish those who do wrong” (I Pet. 2:14). Nonviolence (“love, faith”, para’s 48 – 51) may not be “practical or possible in every circumstance” (para 50). He states as axiomatic that “A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies” (para. 15) yet lauds Pope John Paul’s “engagement with Poland” that stood down Russian oppression and President Nixon’s dealing with “the enemy” in China at the height of the Cold War without bloodshed. The “love” and “faith” [of Gandhi and King] “must always be the North star that guides us on our journey” (para 50). He lauds “love” and “faith” and “engagement” but retains the “right” to act violently.
Yet, in typical Barack Obama fashion, he wants it both ways. He wants the application of “love”, but not too radically if you please. He doesn’t trust it. He can’t bring himself to say, “It is not practical or possible”. All he can say is, “It may not be practical or possible” (para 50). Sometimes the use of force is preferable really to confront evil is what he really is saying. (We are glad he at least struggles with this).
President Obama states, “I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naive, in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King” (para 14). Nor does he want to dismiss “love” and “faith” as “silly or naïve” (para. 51). Yet, that is exactly what he does when he talks and acts as though nonviolent resistance is inappropriate when the threat to our “security” calls for military action. It is here he parts with Jesus, (Gandhi and King) who do not apply (nonviolent) “love” selectively but consistently.
The “just war” theory does not come from Jesus. It comes first from St. Augustine, as an attempt to get (Christian) rulers to abide by “standards” (proportionality, as self-defense, protecting non-combatants, hoped for “success”, etc.) War has always been justified by combatants on either side. The “just war” is like Moses giving spouses permission to divorce. “War” was never what was meant to be between persons or among nations! Jesus had enemies. He refused to be an enemy. He engaged enemies. He wanted the best for enemies. He loved enemies, even when they were determined to destroy him.
Even in the moment of greatest danger to himself personally (and his disciples), Jesus did not argue that he had a right to “self-defense”. At no point did he surround himself with a militia to insist on or impose the “rightness” of his “Way”. His was a completely nonviolent approach to “enemies”. It is not relevant nor true that Jesus was acting uniquely for himself and his mission, as though his example does not apply to his followers at that time or for succeeding generations. We are to “love” our enemies and do good to those who abuse and “hate” us. This never justifies the use of force (violence).
That this way is not popular or adopted by leaders like Al Qaeda or the USA (as being too naïve or passive), does not take away from its application or relevance for Jesus’ followers in threatening situations or circumstances. There is a difference between the way of empire the “Way” of Jesus of Nazareth, a difference being blurred all too often. Alas, we are all “Constantinian Christians”, descendants of the Roman emperor who co-opted Jesus to justify wars against “the enemy” and ensure our “security”.
Finally, Mr. Obama asks us to live by his example, as he speaks of “the mother [his mother and grandmother] facing punishing poverty (who) still takes time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams” (end of the second to the last paragraph, para 53). Here then, is Mr. Obama’s “faith”:
We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that—for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work on Earth” (last para).
This sounds so noble and bracing. Mr. Obama thus sees himself and the US as the guarantor of “Global Security”, gathering up willing nations to work for the great Pax Americana, using Jesus’ nonviolent “love” selectively and insisting on the right to use force (of course, as a last resort) on those who would do the US (and our “friends”) harm.
In this way, the American version of empire will pass the way of all empires, of King David, of Babylon, of Persia, of Alexander the Great, of Rome, and yes, the Third Reich. In being true to King Herod and Pontius Pilate, he will be false to Jesus, Gandhi and King.
There is a “Way” to walk beyond the “Nation” as ultimate good, beyond the truism that “nation will fight nation, and ruler will fight ruler, over and over” (Matt. 24:7). It is the “Way” made crystal clear by Jesus and vindicated by God in his victory over self-aggrandizement and death.
Followers of Jesus will seek to be true to our Leader’s nonviolent Way of loving enemies, living generously toward others, even those who hate us (Matt. 5:38-48). When “the enemy is hungry, feed him; when he’s thirsty, give him a drink. . .Don’t let evil get the best of you; get the best of evil by doing good” (The Message, Rom. 12:20,21).
Any other “way” to peace, especially the use of (violent) force to counter “evil” leads to ever widening circles of vengeance, further injustices and destruction. Faith, hope and love are not to be applied selectively. They are to be applied consistently, completely, and with no coercion. Nonviolent, active resistance IS the “Way”. There is no “way” to peace by violent action. Active, nonviolent resistance is the “Way” to peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)