Saturday, December 10, 2011
Moving in a new direction --> informmotion
I am writing to announce that my blog is moving in a new direction. I have taken a new name and will be doing the same thing in slightly a different way. Check out the new blog, it is called informmotion.
The new layout is a bit different too but might change in the next few weeks. Check it out and spread the word!
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Isreal in the Middle East - Mondoweiss commentaries
Here are two posting from Mondoweiss, a site devoted to (in their own words) "covering American foreign policy in the Middle East, chiefly from a progressive Jewish perspective..." offering "alternatives to prohttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif-Zionist ideology as a basis for American Jewish identity" (About page)
This is a short but interesting commentary on Leon Panetta's remarks made in the last few dhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifays (He is the current US Secretary of Defense)about the need for Israel to "get to the damn [negotiation] table". The comments were made yesterday in a speech at the Brooking's Saban forum, which is an Israeli-American policy group. It seems to me that there are many people within the military, administration and wider government that recognize the truth that Israel is stalling and that an attack on Iran would not be in their real benefit in the long run.
Also check out this piece commenting on the recent press conference held by the American Enterprise Institute (the most influential neoconservative and pro-Israeli think tank in the US) where their Vice President explains that Iran's use of nuclear weapons is not the real threat.
This is a short but interesting commentary on Leon Panetta's remarks made in the last few dhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifays (He is the current US Secretary of Defense)about the need for Israel to "get to the damn [negotiation] table". The comments were made yesterday in a speech at the Brooking's Saban forum, which is an Israeli-American policy group. It seems to me that there are many people within the military, administration and wider government that recognize the truth that Israel is stalling and that an attack on Iran would not be in their real benefit in the long run.
Also check out this piece commenting on the recent press conference held by the American Enterprise Institute (the most influential neoconservative and pro-Israeli think tank in the US) where their Vice President explains that Iran's use of nuclear weapons is not the real threat.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Dr. Gunes Tezcur on Egypt
I am happy to post a recent interview of Dr. Gunes Tezcur, specialist on Muslim political actors in Iran and Turkey. Here he is sharing his insight on the current Egyptian elections and prospects for democracy in the country. The article is interesting and detailed and Tezcur (as always) makes some very important points. Hope you enjoy reading!
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Freedom Riders In Palestine
This next Tuesday Palestinian activists will attempt to board Israeli settler buses traveling to East Jerusalem. Their actions will mirror the historic American Civil Rights movement fifty years later. They are protesting many things, the most prominent being the segregation of roads in the occupied territories. Did you know that in the West Bank and East Jerusalem there are separate roads - one set of roads for Jewish Israeli citizens and one set of roads for Muslim and Christian Palestinians. The reason I make this religious distinction is because any Jewish person in the world is welcomed by the Israeli government to come and live (and sometimes even paid by the Israeli government) in these settlements and by default to use these roads, just because he or she is Jewish. This is discrimination. Spread the word - this symbolic action is important because it takes a very important and emotionally provocative period from the US recent past and demonstrates the parallels between the injustice then and now. I pray for safety for the activists, and that their nonviolent actions will provoke questions and challenge people to look more closely at the current situation in the occupied territories. Here is a link to more info about the civil disobedience planned for next Tuesday.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Israel bombing Iran?
I wish I had more time to write on this but I just wanted to note that there has been lots of talk in multiple news sources about a possible Israeli strike on Iran. Check out this article - thanks to Russia for responsibly encouraging diplomacy. I'll post more when I can.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Curtailing Presidential rights to diplomacy...what?
I just found this very cool site called POPVOX that makes it really easy to communicate with your congressional representatives about bills that are important to you. It's free and so important to communicate to your representatives what you want. On that note, this is a very interesting (although at times over the top in language) article about a bill that is going to be voted on in the House (the content of the bill can be read here). I think it is seriously BAD idea - the President's ability to communicate diplomatically with any foreign government representatives should never be curtailed. Read the article, if you feel the same way take 60 seconds to hop onto POPVOX and let your representative know how you feel.
The Arab Spring - Dr. Asef Bayat
I have been wanting to post something about the Arab Spring for a while now. I had the good chance of hearing a great lecture this last week and so I will share with you some of the highlights. Asef Bayat is a professor of Sociology and Middle East studies who is currently at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He is Iranian born and has lived in Iran, Egypt, England and the United States and has worked at Oxford, UC Berkeley, Columbia University and NYU. You can check out his university webpage for a list of his publications.
Dr. Bayat spoke about what he sees as the most important elements of the uprisings that have occurred in the Arab world within the last 10 months. These are some of the points that I found most interesting.
He emphasized that these social movements have all been, what he calls, "post-Islamist", meaning that the main issues and points of contention brought up in the rallies, strikes and sit-ins are issues that transcend Islamic politics. This is in contrast to what we have seen dominate the political scene in the Middle East since the 1970s which was a strong emphasis on Islam and the call for Islamic government institutions by Islamist parties or opposition groups. But what does Islamist mean? Dr. Bayat explained that Islamist politics is obligation based - focusing on the obligations that Muslims have and should carry out in the society (obligation to wear appropriate/modest clothing is the one we often hear the most about). However, these post Islamist movements (which Dr. Bayat explains first appeared in Egypt in 2005), are rights based - focusing on religiosity in relation to a struggle for rights. According to him, these post-Islamist movements are characterized by individuals who want to "transcend Islamic politics" by creating states that are civil, non-religious but within a pious society. There is a greater emphasis on internal issues within these parties and they tend to be non-ideological. These types of movements have been compared to the Christian Democratic movements and parties in Europe. The best examples of current post-Islamist parties are the AKP party (current ruling party) in Turkey, Al Wasat in Egypt and the Khatami government in Iran (1997-2005) as well as the current Iranian green movement.
Dr. Bayat also mentioned some important structural and social changes that have been going on in the last three decades within the Middle East that can help to explain the amazing events of the Arab Spring:
First there has been a dramatic increase in urbanization which has increased literacy rates, consumption levels, social traditions and has created new entitlements on the part of citizens. He explained this really well with the example of a women (like his mother) who moves to the city from a small village. She used to get her water from a well outside of her village. She now lives in an apartment that has running water. If the running water stops working she feels entitled to have that service restored by the government because it is seen as part of what comes with living in the urban environment. This demonstrates the entitlement (vis a vis the governmnet) that a citizen feels just by living in this different environment.
Second, there has been a change in economic policies within the region (and within much of the developing world) since the 1990s. These New Liberal economic policies, encouraged by the IMF and World Bank through structural adjustment programs, have increased privatization, removed subsidies etc. This has resulted in a break of the social contract between state and citizens that has dominated within these countries in the post-colonial period. After colonial powers left, most of these states established a system where they gained loyalty of the population by providing the basic necessities to their people (such as housing, jobs with the government for all university grads, low food prices through subsidies etc.). These economic changes have had widespread affects on the population, the greatest of which has been to shrink the middle class dramatically. Families that traditionally fit into the middle class, who have been educated and who expect to find work after university, are consistently finding no jobs and many of them are being forced into the living conditions of the traditionally poor classes. This has created extreme discontent.
Last, Dr. Bayat recognized the importance of new technology and communication that has becomes possible in the last two decades. Many people have also called the Arab spring the "Facebook" and "Twitter" revolutions, but it is not only this type of technology that has had a lasting impact. He also mentioned the importance of satellite television news networks such as Al Jazeera which broadcast events from across the Middle East and around the world. These new technologies have made it possible for social networks to form, that allow individuals to act on social discontent. Citizens will only risk taking social action (particularly dangerous social action such as protesting against the authoritarian regime) if they feel that enough of the population is also going to participate. Communication of what was going on in Tunisia, from Tunisian to Tunisian was key (through cell phone text messages, texted images, facebook and twitter etc). But also, the communication of protest tactics and the most effective strategies in Tunisia were essential for individuals protesting in Egypt. Communication through new technology has been one of the most important elements in the Arab Spring. Dr. Bayat noted that this new technology has also made it possible for some of the regimes (such as in Yemen, Syria and Bahrain) to correct for the mistakes of the ousted leaders, and to better navigate the public discontent in their own countries by closely studying what has happened in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.
This is only an overview of the notes I was able to take at the lecture, but Dr. Bayat definitely spoke with wisdom and an great knowledge of the history and social context of the region. I hope to read some of his work in the coming months. I will try to write more or post more when I find concise and well researched pieces on the Arab Spring. It is difficult to analyze these types of events as they are going on but perhaps as time goes on we will have a more nuanced understanding of what these events mean for the future of the region.
Dr. Bayat spoke about what he sees as the most important elements of the uprisings that have occurred in the Arab world within the last 10 months. These are some of the points that I found most interesting.
He emphasized that these social movements have all been, what he calls, "post-Islamist", meaning that the main issues and points of contention brought up in the rallies, strikes and sit-ins are issues that transcend Islamic politics. This is in contrast to what we have seen dominate the political scene in the Middle East since the 1970s which was a strong emphasis on Islam and the call for Islamic government institutions by Islamist parties or opposition groups. But what does Islamist mean? Dr. Bayat explained that Islamist politics is obligation based - focusing on the obligations that Muslims have and should carry out in the society (obligation to wear appropriate/modest clothing is the one we often hear the most about). However, these post Islamist movements (which Dr. Bayat explains first appeared in Egypt in 2005), are rights based - focusing on religiosity in relation to a struggle for rights. According to him, these post-Islamist movements are characterized by individuals who want to "transcend Islamic politics" by creating states that are civil, non-religious but within a pious society. There is a greater emphasis on internal issues within these parties and they tend to be non-ideological. These types of movements have been compared to the Christian Democratic movements and parties in Europe. The best examples of current post-Islamist parties are the AKP party (current ruling party) in Turkey, Al Wasat in Egypt and the Khatami government in Iran (1997-2005) as well as the current Iranian green movement.
Dr. Bayat also mentioned some important structural and social changes that have been going on in the last three decades within the Middle East that can help to explain the amazing events of the Arab Spring:
First there has been a dramatic increase in urbanization which has increased literacy rates, consumption levels, social traditions and has created new entitlements on the part of citizens. He explained this really well with the example of a women (like his mother) who moves to the city from a small village. She used to get her water from a well outside of her village. She now lives in an apartment that has running water. If the running water stops working she feels entitled to have that service restored by the government because it is seen as part of what comes with living in the urban environment. This demonstrates the entitlement (vis a vis the governmnet) that a citizen feels just by living in this different environment.
Second, there has been a change in economic policies within the region (and within much of the developing world) since the 1990s. These New Liberal economic policies, encouraged by the IMF and World Bank through structural adjustment programs, have increased privatization, removed subsidies etc. This has resulted in a break of the social contract between state and citizens that has dominated within these countries in the post-colonial period. After colonial powers left, most of these states established a system where they gained loyalty of the population by providing the basic necessities to their people (such as housing, jobs with the government for all university grads, low food prices through subsidies etc.). These economic changes have had widespread affects on the population, the greatest of which has been to shrink the middle class dramatically. Families that traditionally fit into the middle class, who have been educated and who expect to find work after university, are consistently finding no jobs and many of them are being forced into the living conditions of the traditionally poor classes. This has created extreme discontent.
Last, Dr. Bayat recognized the importance of new technology and communication that has becomes possible in the last two decades. Many people have also called the Arab spring the "Facebook" and "Twitter" revolutions, but it is not only this type of technology that has had a lasting impact. He also mentioned the importance of satellite television news networks such as Al Jazeera which broadcast events from across the Middle East and around the world. These new technologies have made it possible for social networks to form, that allow individuals to act on social discontent. Citizens will only risk taking social action (particularly dangerous social action such as protesting against the authoritarian regime) if they feel that enough of the population is also going to participate. Communication of what was going on in Tunisia, from Tunisian to Tunisian was key (through cell phone text messages, texted images, facebook and twitter etc). But also, the communication of protest tactics and the most effective strategies in Tunisia were essential for individuals protesting in Egypt. Communication through new technology has been one of the most important elements in the Arab Spring. Dr. Bayat noted that this new technology has also made it possible for some of the regimes (such as in Yemen, Syria and Bahrain) to correct for the mistakes of the ousted leaders, and to better navigate the public discontent in their own countries by closely studying what has happened in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.
This is only an overview of the notes I was able to take at the lecture, but Dr. Bayat definitely spoke with wisdom and an great knowledge of the history and social context of the region. I hope to read some of his work in the coming months. I will try to write more or post more when I find concise and well researched pieces on the Arab Spring. It is difficult to analyze these types of events as they are going on but perhaps as time goes on we will have a more nuanced understanding of what these events mean for the future of the region.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
US laws - are they in our interest?
Today the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization voted to recognize Palestine as a full member. This is big news since it is an important international organization, and the first to recognize Palestine. A few weeks ago when UNESCO announced that it would consider Palestinian membership, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton objected saying that the organization does not have the authority to make that decision and should wait until the UN general assembly votes. But they didn't. Part of what made this vote possible is that the veto rules of the UN general assembly do not apply in UNESCO, and therefore the US (or other security council members) are unable to veto the vote (which the US had done in favor of Israel 32 by the time President Bill Clinton left office). The vote was 107 votes in favor, 14 against and 52 abstentions. Haaretz reported that of the major international players "The United States, Canada and Germany voted against Palestinian membership. Brazil, Russia, China, India, South Africa and France voted in favor. Britain abstained." This is a great achievement and it is great to see an international body taking action to end the status quo that has allowed Palestinian territory to be slowly diminished over the last forty four years.
The big news that comes along with this is that the US has, in response to the UNESCO vote, cut its funding to the organization. The next payment of $60 million due in November will not be delivered and the US has cutting its future funding. This might should sound weird. Why is the US cutting funding to one of the most influential and important international aid organizations? Yahoo news reported that this means cutting funds for the protection of "historic heritage sites and works to improve world literacy, access to schooling for girls and cultural understanding." The US provides 1/5 of the organization's funding. The reality is that the US is required by longstanding legislation to withdraw funding from any international organization that recognizes Palestine before official peace is made with Israel.
This is one of the elements that is the most frustrating about the reaction of Israel and the US in the last few months in which the Palestinian Authority (PA) has changed its course of action to try to gain international recognition as a state, rather than rely on the US lead peace process. The US and Israel have consistently responded to the PA's new policy by saying that it endangers the peace process. This is only true for one reason: The PA is not doing what Israel and the US want it to do. What is ironic is that they are doing exactly what the World Zionist Organization (the organization that advocated for the founding of the state of Israel) did more than sixty years ago when they lobbied international powers to recognize Israel in the British mandate of Palestine, what ultimately led to the creation of the state of Israel.
In response to the UNESCO vote Israel has said that it would reconsider its cooperation with the organization. I find this surprising that US legislation is more extreme than Israel's own reaction to the UNESCO vote. It's a good example of how the US has for some time been passing legislation that is more in the interest of Israel than even in the interest of US citizens, not to mention the international community. If you want more information about whether US policy toward Israel is beneficial for US interests world wide, check out the article by John Mearsheimer (Harvard University) and Steven Walt (University of Chicago). They are two of the most respected and influential political scientists in the field of International Relations. Their article published in 2006 entitled The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy (Middle East Policy, Sep2006, Vol. 13 Issue 3, p29) was published as a book in 2007 under the same name. I have not read the book but the article is an important work, analyzing whether US policy toward Israel is beneficial for the United States, comparing it to policy toward other regions of the world and other allies. It is an impartial and professional analysis of some of the effects of US policy toward Israel. Unfortunately I cannot post the article here but check out the wikipedia post about it and comment if you really cannot find the article or the book and I'll try to help you out.
- J.G.
The big news that comes along with this is that the US has, in response to the UNESCO vote, cut its funding to the organization. The next payment of $60 million due in November will not be delivered and the US has cutting its future funding. This might should sound weird. Why is the US cutting funding to one of the most influential and important international aid organizations? Yahoo news reported that this means cutting funds for the protection of "historic heritage sites and works to improve world literacy, access to schooling for girls and cultural understanding." The US provides 1/5 of the organization's funding. The reality is that the US is required by longstanding legislation to withdraw funding from any international organization that recognizes Palestine before official peace is made with Israel.
This is one of the elements that is the most frustrating about the reaction of Israel and the US in the last few months in which the Palestinian Authority (PA) has changed its course of action to try to gain international recognition as a state, rather than rely on the US lead peace process. The US and Israel have consistently responded to the PA's new policy by saying that it endangers the peace process. This is only true for one reason: The PA is not doing what Israel and the US want it to do. What is ironic is that they are doing exactly what the World Zionist Organization (the organization that advocated for the founding of the state of Israel) did more than sixty years ago when they lobbied international powers to recognize Israel in the British mandate of Palestine, what ultimately led to the creation of the state of Israel.
In response to the UNESCO vote Israel has said that it would reconsider its cooperation with the organization. I find this surprising that US legislation is more extreme than Israel's own reaction to the UNESCO vote. It's a good example of how the US has for some time been passing legislation that is more in the interest of Israel than even in the interest of US citizens, not to mention the international community. If you want more information about whether US policy toward Israel is beneficial for US interests world wide, check out the article by John Mearsheimer (Harvard University) and Steven Walt (University of Chicago). They are two of the most respected and influential political scientists in the field of International Relations. Their article published in 2006 entitled The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy (Middle East Policy, Sep2006, Vol. 13 Issue 3, p29) was published as a book in 2007 under the same name. I have not read the book but the article is an important work, analyzing whether US policy toward Israel is beneficial for the United States, comparing it to policy toward other regions of the world and other allies. It is an impartial and professional analysis of some of the effects of US policy toward Israel. Unfortunately I cannot post the article here but check out the wikipedia post about it and comment if you really cannot find the article or the book and I'll try to help you out.
- J.G.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Speak clearly please.
Well, I am confused as to what the Obama administration is trying to do with the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. This article, like the stories from Le Monde, BBC and other news sites explains that the Obama administration has given up trying to convince Israel to freeze their settlement activities.
The phrase of explanation from Philip Crowly the State Department spokesperson is as follows: "After a considerable effort, we have concluded that this does not create a firm basis to work towards our shared goal of a framework agreement"
I am surprised that they did not choose a sentence that at least made sense so it was easier to swallow! "After a considerable effort" meaning, after offering everything possible under the sun to Israel (including never asking for a settlement freeze again, EVER), Israel's government still wouldn't agree to freeze settlements.
"...this does not create a firm basis to work towards our shared goal of a framework agreement" What I think makes this outrageous is that the sentence is made to sound as if the US has been trying to determine whether it is good or bad to freeze settlements. BUT that is not at all what has been happening for the last few weeks - the US has been lobbying Israel to continue the freeze because it is obvious even to Israel's biggest supporter that their settlement activity cannot lead to peace. I'm not one to argue for the moral character of governments but let me just say this flat out: Obama administration, have the guts to say you are backing down on settlements if that is what you're doing. Don't talk in the "we" about a decision that you had no part it, say it like it is, Israel didn't budge, we're trying something else. I sure hope that something else is worth while.
I would love your comments on this, other explanations of this? anyone?
The phrase of explanation from Philip Crowly the State Department spokesperson is as follows: "After a considerable effort, we have concluded that this does not create a firm basis to work towards our shared goal of a framework agreement"
I am surprised that they did not choose a sentence that at least made sense so it was easier to swallow! "After a considerable effort" meaning, after offering everything possible under the sun to Israel (including never asking for a settlement freeze again, EVER), Israel's government still wouldn't agree to freeze settlements.
"...this does not create a firm basis to work towards our shared goal of a framework agreement" What I think makes this outrageous is that the sentence is made to sound as if the US has been trying to determine whether it is good or bad to freeze settlements. BUT that is not at all what has been happening for the last few weeks - the US has been lobbying Israel to continue the freeze because it is obvious even to Israel's biggest supporter that their settlement activity cannot lead to peace. I'm not one to argue for the moral character of governments but let me just say this flat out: Obama administration, have the guts to say you are backing down on settlements if that is what you're doing. Don't talk in the "we" about a decision that you had no part it, say it like it is, Israel didn't budge, we're trying something else. I sure hope that something else is worth while.
I would love your comments on this, other explanations of this? anyone?
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Young Jewish and Proud Nonviolent protest
This non violent protest took place this week in New Orleans interrupting a speech given by Benjamin Netanyau - I think the response of the crowd is stunning. They are protesting occupation, an activity that is recognized as illegal by the entire international community (except Israel of course). And the crowd goes crazy. What courage this must have taken - to stand up for justice IN THEIR OWN COMMUNITY. There is some comfort in being dragged out of a room for protesting against the actions of another group, but being screamed at, booed and forcefully dragged out of a room by the people who are called your brothers in faith. That takes incredible courage.
After watching the video up top read this explanation from one of the members of the protest. It is thought provoking and impressive. Great work.
After watching the video up top read this explanation from one of the members of the protest. It is thought provoking and impressive. Great work.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Farheen Hakeem and the US Green Party
I ran across this program put on by Al Jazeera about a very interesting and inspiring Muslim American women. I applaud Farheen Hakeem for what she is doing and look forward to watching her as she continues running for office!
Friday, October 22, 2010
the simple truth.
It's good to read this in the BBC. Today they are reporting what many people have known to be the truth for a long time: Israel's colonies have been eating away at Palestinian land. This is a basic fact and the truth of it is that while there is talk of peace negotiations the situation on the ground is the division and isolation of the Palestinian people into thousands of enclaves. Check out this short article and the map I have included. This is one very big reason why daily life in Palestine is anything but normal.
You can also listen to this 30 minute press conference with Richard Falk the rapporteur for the UN talking in more detail about this situation.
Jewish Voice for Peace, reaction to "anti-semitic" accusation
Once again and important message coming from Jewish Voice for Peace. I don't agree with everything they say and do but I think they are an outstanding example of the Jewish American community grappling with the reality of Israel's policies and human rights of Palestinians. It is an email that was sent out today regarding the Anti Defamation League's list of Top Ten anit- Israel groups in the US...read on:
Also, check out the JVP website where there are lots of great resources and information.
"My family survived the pogroms of Eastern Europe and came to the US before the outbreak of WWII only to see many close relatives killed in the Holocaust. My grandparents took their profound grief and channeled it into creating a state they hoped would be safe for Jews and a light unto nations.
It is because of their story that I was brought up to remember the past and to create a world that refuses to remain silent in the face of such persecution.
And it is because of their story that I’ve dedicated myself, like so many of you, to doing everything I can to push for a truly just peace for both Israelis and Palestinians that recognizes the full humanity of all peoples.
But to be told by the Anti-Defamation League, as we were last week when they named us one of the top-ten "anti-Israel" groups in the US, that this dream makes me anti-Israel and somehow less Jewish is beyond repugnant.
To the Anti-Defamation League: you do not speak for me, for my family, for our community.
For all of us who support the work of Jewish Voice for Peace, our belief in the universal value of human life is essential, not negotiable. Our work for human rights is based on a vision of possibilities for all of us.
The story about the ADL’s top ten list has made the news across Israel – in Haaretz, and the Jerusalem Post, and Ynet . But it’s also triggering quite a reaction here in the United States, revealing yet one more way the Anti-Defamation League’s Abe Foxman has a broken moral compass when it comes to Israel.
Below is JVP’s official response to being named on the ADL’s Top Ten list.
I’ve also included links to various media reports and analyses.
Finally, if you are as offended as I am by the assertion that the work we do to support universal human rights is in any way anti-Israel, I invite you to join the many others who have made a gift to JVP in honor of Abe Foxman himself by CLICKING HERE NOW.
Shabbat Shalom,
Cecilie Surasky, Jewish Voice for Peace
Jewish Voice for Peace statement on making it on the
Anti-Defamation League's list of top ten "anti-Israel" groups
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is at it again. They just came up with a list of the top ten most influential anti-Israel Groups in America, and Jewish Voice for Peace makes the list. We appreciate the honor, except that the ADL--as usual--got a few things wrong in describing us.
TOP 5 THINGS ABOUT JVP THE ADL GOT FLATLY WRONG
(1) JVP IS NEITHER ANTI-ISRAEL NOR ANTI-ZIONIST.
We do not hold Zionism as a litmus test for membership. Some of our members are Zionists, some are anti-Zionists, and some are non-Zionists. We believe you can define yourself in any of these ways as long as you support an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank -- including East Jerusalem -- and Gaza, and you advocate for human rights, which naturally apply equally to Israelis and Palestinians.
We stand by Israelis that hold these views, such as Israeli conscientious objectors and Israeli actors refusing to play in illegal settlements in the West Bank.
We stand by Palestinians that hold these views, such as Palestinian activists protesting the Israeli confiscation of land in the West Bank town of Bil'in.
We stand by internationals that hold these views, such as students pressing for divestment from occupation and war crimes or activists trying to break the siege of Gaza.
What unites us is our belief in human rights and equality.
(2) WE DO NOT 'USE' OUR JEWISH IDENTITY TO PROTECT ANTI-SEMITES.
We are Jews and allies who strongly oppose anti-Jewish hatred, Islamophobia, and anti-Arab racism.
We do understand that as Jews we have a special role to play in bringing about a change in American and Israeli policy. Israel claims to be acting in the name of the Jewish people. Some American Jewish organizations defend Israel right or wrong, claiming to be representing all American Jews. It is up to us to set the record straight.
We strongly reject the misleading accusations of anti-Semitism that the ADL and others have used in other to protect Israel's policies. For example, when the ADL accuses Archbishop Desmond Tutu of anti-Semitism, it is not only wrong, but it also makes all Jews less safe when facing a real case of anti-Jewish hatred.
(3) ACKNOWLEDGING THE NAKBA IS NOT OPPOSING ISRAEL'S EXISTENCE.
Would the ADL call those that acknowledge the genocide of Native-Americans in this land anti-American?
We believe that in order to reach a just and comprehensive peace between Israelis and Palestinians, the Nakba must be addressed. Without acknowledging the events of 1947-9, there will be no truth and reconciliation. JVP adheres to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that "everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and return to his country." Israelis should acknowledge the Palestinian refugees' right of return and negotiate a mutually agreed just solution based on principles established in international law, including return, compensation, and/or resettlement.
We acknowledge our own legacy of suffering and the horrors of the Holocaust, but we do not allow these to blind us to the suffering of others. Quite the opposite, we have learned from our own history and from our own tradition not to stand silent when others are suffering. The ADL, on the other hand, fights Holocaust-deniers and denies full recognition of the Armenian genocide at the same time.
(4) THE ADL IMPOSES ON PALESTINIANS A BURDEN IT DOES NOT IMPOSE ON ITSELF.
Jews in America constitute fewer than 2% of the population. We would be rightfully upset if we had to recognize the United States as a "Christian state." And yet, he ADL expects Palestinians -- 20% of Israel's population -- to recognize Israel as a "Jewish state." The ADL apparently has learned little from Hillel: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."
(5) STARVING PALESTINIANS IS NOT OUR JUDAISM.
The ADL protests the fact that JVP members hold signs stating "Starving Palestinians Is Not My Judaism." This one they got right, and they have the picture to prove it. Our question to the ADL is: what is your Judaism?
Want to read more?
Salon:Anti-Defamation League beclowns itself, again
Daily Beast on ADL's "desperation."
New York's Jewish Week
Bay Area's Jweekly
CAIR reply in the Huffington Post.
Rabbinical Council co-chair Brant Rosen.
Also, check out the JVP website where there are lots of great resources and information.
"My family survived the pogroms of Eastern Europe and came to the US before the outbreak of WWII only to see many close relatives killed in the Holocaust. My grandparents took their profound grief and channeled it into creating a state they hoped would be safe for Jews and a light unto nations.
It is because of their story that I was brought up to remember the past and to create a world that refuses to remain silent in the face of such persecution.
And it is because of their story that I’ve dedicated myself, like so many of you, to doing everything I can to push for a truly just peace for both Israelis and Palestinians that recognizes the full humanity of all peoples.
But to be told by the Anti-Defamation League, as we were last week when they named us one of the top-ten "anti-Israel" groups in the US, that this dream makes me anti-Israel and somehow less Jewish is beyond repugnant.
To the Anti-Defamation League: you do not speak for me, for my family, for our community.
For all of us who support the work of Jewish Voice for Peace, our belief in the universal value of human life is essential, not negotiable. Our work for human rights is based on a vision of possibilities for all of us.
The story about the ADL’s top ten list has made the news across Israel – in Haaretz, and the Jerusalem Post, and Ynet . But it’s also triggering quite a reaction here in the United States, revealing yet one more way the Anti-Defamation League’s Abe Foxman has a broken moral compass when it comes to Israel.
Below is JVP’s official response to being named on the ADL’s Top Ten list.
I’ve also included links to various media reports and analyses.
Finally, if you are as offended as I am by the assertion that the work we do to support universal human rights is in any way anti-Israel, I invite you to join the many others who have made a gift to JVP in honor of Abe Foxman himself by CLICKING HERE NOW.
Shabbat Shalom,
Cecilie Surasky, Jewish Voice for Peace
Jewish Voice for Peace statement on making it on the
Anti-Defamation League's list of top ten "anti-Israel" groups
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is at it again. They just came up with a list of the top ten most influential anti-Israel Groups in America, and Jewish Voice for Peace makes the list. We appreciate the honor, except that the ADL--as usual--got a few things wrong in describing us.
TOP 5 THINGS ABOUT JVP THE ADL GOT FLATLY WRONG
(1) JVP IS NEITHER ANTI-ISRAEL NOR ANTI-ZIONIST.
We do not hold Zionism as a litmus test for membership. Some of our members are Zionists, some are anti-Zionists, and some are non-Zionists. We believe you can define yourself in any of these ways as long as you support an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank -- including East Jerusalem -- and Gaza, and you advocate for human rights, which naturally apply equally to Israelis and Palestinians.
We stand by Israelis that hold these views, such as Israeli conscientious objectors and Israeli actors refusing to play in illegal settlements in the West Bank.
We stand by Palestinians that hold these views, such as Palestinian activists protesting the Israeli confiscation of land in the West Bank town of Bil'in.
We stand by internationals that hold these views, such as students pressing for divestment from occupation and war crimes or activists trying to break the siege of Gaza.
What unites us is our belief in human rights and equality.
(2) WE DO NOT 'USE' OUR JEWISH IDENTITY TO PROTECT ANTI-SEMITES.
We are Jews and allies who strongly oppose anti-Jewish hatred, Islamophobia, and anti-Arab racism.
We do understand that as Jews we have a special role to play in bringing about a change in American and Israeli policy. Israel claims to be acting in the name of the Jewish people. Some American Jewish organizations defend Israel right or wrong, claiming to be representing all American Jews. It is up to us to set the record straight.
We strongly reject the misleading accusations of anti-Semitism that the ADL and others have used in other to protect Israel's policies. For example, when the ADL accuses Archbishop Desmond Tutu of anti-Semitism, it is not only wrong, but it also makes all Jews less safe when facing a real case of anti-Jewish hatred.
(3) ACKNOWLEDGING THE NAKBA IS NOT OPPOSING ISRAEL'S EXISTENCE.
Would the ADL call those that acknowledge the genocide of Native-Americans in this land anti-American?
We believe that in order to reach a just and comprehensive peace between Israelis and Palestinians, the Nakba must be addressed. Without acknowledging the events of 1947-9, there will be no truth and reconciliation. JVP adheres to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that "everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and return to his country." Israelis should acknowledge the Palestinian refugees' right of return and negotiate a mutually agreed just solution based on principles established in international law, including return, compensation, and/or resettlement.
We acknowledge our own legacy of suffering and the horrors of the Holocaust, but we do not allow these to blind us to the suffering of others. Quite the opposite, we have learned from our own history and from our own tradition not to stand silent when others are suffering. The ADL, on the other hand, fights Holocaust-deniers and denies full recognition of the Armenian genocide at the same time.
(4) THE ADL IMPOSES ON PALESTINIANS A BURDEN IT DOES NOT IMPOSE ON ITSELF.
Jews in America constitute fewer than 2% of the population. We would be rightfully upset if we had to recognize the United States as a "Christian state." And yet, he ADL expects Palestinians -- 20% of Israel's population -- to recognize Israel as a "Jewish state." The ADL apparently has learned little from Hillel: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."
(5) STARVING PALESTINIANS IS NOT OUR JUDAISM.
The ADL protests the fact that JVP members hold signs stating "Starving Palestinians Is Not My Judaism." This one they got right, and they have the picture to prove it. Our question to the ADL is: what is your Judaism?
Want to read more?
Salon:Anti-Defamation League beclowns itself, again
Daily Beast on ADL's "desperation."
New York's Jewish Week
Bay Area's Jweekly
CAIR reply in the Huffington Post.
Rabbinical Council co-chair Brant Rosen.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
water and land rights- Israel and Palestine
I've been doing some surface reading of the issues regarding water rights in the Middle East and more particularly in Israel and Palestine. This article from Aljazeera brings up some interesting and important points regarding water restriction and use as an arm, within the context of the disputed Negev region in the south if Israel and the Bedouin populations that live there. I'll try to post more on water rights soon as they are an important dimension of this conflict.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Rebirth of the Blog
I am starting up again, and perhaps moving in a bit of a new direction. I commit to posting more regularly. My current goal is to create a place where I can post articles and other work that I think are important for U.S. citizens to be aware of. Feel free to write me! I would love to hear your comments and engage in honest and respectful debate (even better when backed up by sources!)
Here are a few articles to start us off:
This one is odd and interesting. It's the response of two french college students towards the French law that has recently been passed on the banning of the burka. Here is a short explination taken from my facebook posting that I put up about the same article:
The French article written by the girls that appear in the video is more detailed, thoughtful and political. I liked that!
Here is an interesting... quote:
'L'aspect du débat qui nous a le plus interpellé, au-delà de l'injustice qui se dégage de cette loi, c'est l'hypocrisie des hommes politiques français qui agitent le sacro-saint drapeau féministe sous prétexte de défendre ces pauvres femmes voilées de force par leurs sauvages de maris.
C'est très sympa pour elles hein, merci ! Mais a-t-on réellement besoin d'une loi spéciale burqa pour nous rappeler qu'il est interdit de forcer un individu à faire quoi que ce soit contre son gré ? Nous dicter notre façon de nous habiller serait donc devenu le rôle de l'Etat (comme s'ils n'avaient pas d'autres chats à fouetter…)'
Rough Translation: "The aspect of the debate that interested us the most, outside of the injustice that this reaks of, it he hipocracy of french male politicians who wave the sacro-sanct femminist flag under the pretext of defending these poor veiled women, forced by their savage husbands to cover up.
It's very nice of them, thanks! But do we really need a special law burqa to remind us that it is forbidden/illegal to force an individual to do anything against their own will? Apparently telling us how to dress has become the role of the state (as if they didn't have better fish to fry)."
Here is another posting from a group that I very much appreciate called Jewish Voice for Peace. This is one way that people of influence (musicians and other artists in this case) are usuing their influence to demonstrate that they do not support the occupation of Palestinian territories by Israel.
That is all for now. More to come soon.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
A big one coming
To my faithful readers - I am sorry it has been so long since I wrote a real entry. I promise a good one is coming in the next week or so - I am in the process of editing it. Until then check out Helena Cobban's blog Just World News, she is daily putting up important and thought provoking posts about Israel and Palestine in these important and tense weeks.
see you soon
see you soon
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Not surprising...
I have to be honest that when I read this article I was not surprised. Living overseas (and perhaps some of you in the states have the same experience?) I have often heard the question "how is it possible that the US government has not yet found Osama Bin Laden?" Here is one of the answers that is thrown out there, which I am now very happy to have some evidence to support: "Al-Qaeda head Osama Bin Laden was 'within grasp' of US " check out his article in the BBC from Nov. 29th.
Why one should speak their mind
Check out this important post by Helena Cobban, who herself was posting on the activities of David Remez and Adam Horowitz. And, congratulations to Columbia Sportswear for making such a respectable decision.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Understanding Iran and the Non Proliferation Treaty
As you might have read in today's paper Iran has announced the planning of ten new uranium enrichment sites - just after the condemnation by the UN of the site that they recently submitted to the UN nuclear proliferation watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This is such a bummer of a situation and one that I really don't understand well.
It should be noted that in the recent press it was often reported that the international community "discovered" the existance of the recent site in Qom. In fact, the BBC article that came out today says "On Friday, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) passed a resolution that was heavily critical of Iran for covering up a uranium enrichment plant near the town of Qom." This is quite interesting BECAUSE - the site was not discovered at all. Iran submitted a letter to the IAEA stating that they were building a new site. ** It should be noted here** that in the Nuclear Non Profliferation Treaty (that Iran has signed) signatory states are required to notify the IAEA 180 days before the site is operational. Iran's letter to the agency said that the site would be operational in about THREE YEARS.
The site was not discovered - it was announced by Iran in the legal terms set out by the NPT.
Today's turn of events prompted me to read the NPT - why not? Here is the link - it's only five pages and quite short (i read it in less than five minutes). Article X is quite interesting: it reserves the right of all signatory parties to WITHDRAW from the treaty at any time if they believe that their country's "supreme interest" is in jepordy. They are required to give the IAEA three months notification. Food for though.
It should be noted that in the recent press it was often reported that the international community "discovered" the existance of the recent site in Qom. In fact, the BBC article that came out today says "On Friday, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) passed a resolution that was heavily critical of Iran for covering up a uranium enrichment plant near the town of Qom." This is quite interesting BECAUSE - the site was not discovered at all. Iran submitted a letter to the IAEA stating that they were building a new site. ** It should be noted here** that in the Nuclear Non Profliferation Treaty (that Iran has signed) signatory states are required to notify the IAEA 180 days before the site is operational. Iran's letter to the agency said that the site would be operational in about THREE YEARS.
The site was not discovered - it was announced by Iran in the legal terms set out by the NPT.
Today's turn of events prompted me to read the NPT - why not? Here is the link - it's only five pages and quite short (i read it in less than five minutes). Article X is quite interesting: it reserves the right of all signatory parties to WITHDRAW from the treaty at any time if they believe that their country's "supreme interest" is in jepordy. They are required to give the IAEA three months notification. Food for though.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Seymour Hersh - quick interview
Here is a quick and informative interview with Seymour Hersh who is known for his exceptional work as a journalist. He has in the last decade become known for his writing on US intervention in Iran.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)