BDS « Tikkunista!

Mar-02-2012 | Comments (0)

2. On the Continued Existence of Israel

Bird’s Eye: Two Israelis of note worry about whether Israel can continue to exist as a Jewish democratic country, while BDS supporter Norman Finklestein (who’s he?) launches a blistering attack on the BDS movement.

* The Suicide State Uri Avnery Counterpunch

After 1967, another much less funny joke took its place.

It goes like this: many Israelis ask God for their state to be Jewish and democratic, and that it will include the entire country between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. That is too much even for the Almighty. So he asks them to choose between a state that is Jewish and democratic but only in part of the country, or a state in all the country that is Jewish but not democratic, or a state in the entire country that is democratic but not Jewish…..This is the choice facing us today as it did almost 45 years ago. It has only become more sharply defined.

…The current government is determined to prevent any peace that would compel it to give up any part of the occupied territories (22% of pre-1948 Palestine). There is no one around who would compel them to do so.

What remains? A state that is either non-democratic or non-Jewish.

* Come Visit Israel While You Can Bradley Burston Haaretz

I have a nephew who’s never seen Israel. I have young cousins, and friends and children of friends, who have never been here, but who have long wanted to come visit.

I want them to come soon. Before it’s all gone.

The Israel I want them to see is dying by the day.

It’s the Israel I saw when I myself once came to visit. A place which had a calm but breathtaking belief in a better future. A place that still had a shot at just that. It was this Israel that convinced me to stay.

This is this Israel that this government, and this parliament, has decided, once and for all, to finish off, precept by democratic precept. As they see it, the sooner, the quieter, and the more permanently, the better.

My nephew is going to have to hurry.

I want him to see what’s left of a place of quietly extraordinary people who dreamed of decency and peace, who envisioned making a place in the world where both we and our immediate neighbors could live together: no longer hated, no longer hating.

It was a place where there was an overriding belief that democracy was sacred, that minority rights should be respected more and more, rather than less and ultimately not at all.

* Norman Finklestein on BDS Youtube 5 min Transcript below film

I’ve earned my right to speak my mind, and I’m not going to tolerate what I think is silliness, childishness, and a lot of leftist posturing.
…I support the BDS. But I said it will never reach a broad public until and unless they’re explicit in their goal. And their goal has to include the recognition of Israel or it’s a nonstarter. It won’t reach the public because the moment you go out there Israel will start to say “What about us?”, and “They won’t recognize our right” and in fact that’s correct. You can’t answer the Israelis on that because they’re making a statement that’s factually correct.

There’s no Israel. That’s what it’s really about. And you think you’re fooling anybody. You think you’re so clever that people can’t figure that out for themselves? No they understand the arithmetic perfectly well. Are you going to reach a broad public which is going to hear the Israeli side ‘they want to destroy us?’ No you’re not. And frankly you know what? You shouldn’t. You shouldn’t read a broad public because you’re dishonest. And I wouldn’t trust those people if I had to live in this state. I wouldn’t. It’s dishonesty. (good response to NF here)

3. The Israeli Fall

Mar-11-2011 | Comments (1)

Bird’s Eye: What is notable here is what is being said and, equally, who is saying it. Uri Avnery looks at Israel’s increasing isolation, a counter-terrorism CIA veteran attacks Livni (a “left” leader in Israel!) as out of touch. And in the US J-Street talks about BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) and that means it’s reached the mainstream. And even Mitchell Plitnick, who opposes BDS, talks about how to exert force on Israeli leaders. Change is happening.

* Wrong Side Uri Avnery Gush Shalom

OF ALL the memorable phrases uttered by Barack Obama in the last two years, the one that stuck in my mind more than any other appeared in his historic speech in Cairo in the early days of his term. He warned the nations not to place themselves “on the wrong side of history.”

…This week, a fascinating telephone conversation took place. On the one end was Binyamin Netanyahu, on the other the German Chancellor…. Netanyahu called to rebuke Angela Merkel for Germany’s vote in favor of the Security Council resolution condemning the settlements – the resolution blocked by the scandalous US veto.He was shocked by the answer. Instead of a contrite Frau Merkel apologizing abjectly, his ear was filled by a schoolmistress scolding him in no uncertain terms. She told him that he had broken all his promises, that no one of the world’s leaders believes a single word of his any more. She demanded that he make peace with the Palestinians….This conversation is a symptom of an ongoing process – the slow but steady deterioration in Israel’s international standing.

* Livni’s Guidance on Arab Democracy Robert Grenier Al Jazeera (Thanks, Gabe!)

Robert Grenier was the CIA’s chief of station in Islamabad, Pakistan, from 1999 to 2002. He was also the director of the CIA’s counter-terrorism centre.

Israel is not about to repeat its “mistake” of 2006, when it allowed Palestinian elections to go forward, and had to exert great ex-post-facto efforts to undermine their results once the wrong party - Hamas - had won them. No, this time Tzipi Livni has a far more clever idea: ..under this scheme, every party hoping to contest elections would first have “to embrace, in word and deed, a set of core democratic principles: the renunciation of violence and the acceptance of state monopoly over the use of force, the pursuit of aims by peaceful means, commitment to the rule of law and to equality before the law, and adherence to international agreements to which their country is bound.”

….Of course, there is one small inconvenience in these proposed international criteria for acceptance as a genuinely democratic party: The vast majority of Israeli parties, and certainly Livni herself, could not meet them. “Renunciation of violence…and the pursuit of aims by peaceful means”? Given Israel’s past use of violence in pursuit of its interests, surely Livni cannot be serious. …I happen to believe that Palestinians are best advised not resort to violence, simply because in the context of their struggle, non-violent resistance, properly applied, would serve their cause far better than resort to violence. I’ll gladly compare counter-terrorism credentials with anyone - but certainly have no objection in principle to the use of violence in legitimate resistance to an oppressor.

*See? We Can Talk About BDS Mitchell Plitnick

I should probably reiterate that I don’t support the global BDS movement, though I also oppose its demonization, and do support economic action aimed at ending the occupation. The occupation is about to complete its 44th year. Even if one grants (and I do not) that Israel fought a defensive war in 1967 and ended up with the land without intent, it cannot be argued that Israel has, in those 44 years, made a serious effort to end that occupation. The massive expansion of settlements in occupied territory, which are now home to around 500,000 settlers in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, puts the lie to any claim of Israeli determination to end the occupation.

These worsening conditions are happening in years where Israelis are more secure than they’ve ever been. Can we really expect that Israel won’t be attacked under such circumstances? It is Israel’s own policies that are feeding this movement, and it will continue to grow until Israel stops feeding it. For those of us who do not wish to see Israel so targeted, it’s crucial that we lay the blame where it belongs: at the door of Israeli policy.

* Remarks to JStreet on BDS Rebecca Vilkomerson, Executive Director, Jewish Voice for Peace

I want to make sure we all are clear about what BDS is. BDS stands for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. It’s a Palestinian led, globally active, nonviolent movement in support of equality and freedom for the Palestinian people…. I find it to be the most hopeful strategy that we can engage in — a way to act on principles of equality and human dignity that I value as a Jew and as a human being….

July 16th, 2010 :: Year 7, Issue 25

Aug-06-2010 | Comments (0)

Followups

* Oil Spills: Big Picture has an amazing photo series on the recent Chinese oil spill in Dalian and the human scale efforts to clean it up.

* BDS perspectives. Rabbi Lynn Gottleib has ideas that are worth reading on the issue, “As a forty year veteran of this issue, I, too have witnessed what is happening on the ground and I am moved to be part of the effort to change Israeli policy. I do this from a love of people. I believe that Jewish tradition stands with me. Not profiting or benefiting from the fruits of violence is a central tenet of a life committed to nonviolence. Since the Jewish state is acting in my name, I am forced to withdraw support for Israeli food products until the closure is lifted, the policy of land seizure ends and negotiations are taken up in a meaningful way. This does not mean I am cutting off my relationships to the people I love on both sides….”

3. Looking at BDS

Jul-16-2010 | Comments (0)

Bird’s-Eye: Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions are the new weapon of choice for some of those who oppose Israel’s policy towards Palestinians. But at a time when BDS is being embraced by such groups as the Methodists, some who oppose Israel’s policy are saying that BDS is too blunt a weapon to be useful. We don’t reach simple answers, but here’s a look at a complex issue. As always, comments are welcome.

* BDS Campaign Wants Israel To Abide By International Law Neve Gordon Zspace

There is a considerable amount of misunderstanding about the BDS (Boycott Divestment and Sanctions). As John Berger explained a while back, BDS is not a principle but a strategy; it is not against Israel but against Israeli policy; when the policy changes BDS will end.

BDS is also not about a particular solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but rather the demand that Israel abide by international law and UN resolutions. It is accordingly something that you can support if you are for a two state solution or a one state solution. You can even support it as a Zionist. It arises from the realization, following years of experience, that the Occupation will not end unless Israelis understand that it has a price.

* Boycott and Divestment? Bernard Avishai Dot Com

Divestment on the Berkeley model assumes the capacity to identify companies specifically supporting occupation activities. But Israel’s networked economy makes this virtually impossible. Is United Technologies bad because one division, Sikorsky, makes Israeli attack helicopters—or is it good because another division, Carrier, makes Palestinian air conditioners? And what about GE CAT scans? For that matter, what about the Samsung cellphone the attack helicopter pilot may be carrying, or the Android software on the cellphone? OK, some will respond, just make the boycott more general. But the idea that precipitating Israeli economic collapse will somehow hasten a democratic outcome is like smacking a TV to fix the picture. Come to think of it, it is like blockading Gaza to sink Hamas.

* Elvis Costello Snubs Israel – The Daily Beast

This effort to sever ties with Israel only reinforces ultra-nationalistic and hawkish forces within Israeli society, who perceive the world as innately hostile to the Jewish state. In South Africa, as Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery has pointed out, boycott efforts reminded black South Africans that the world was with them; in Israel, it is likely to have the opposite effect. If they believe the world is against them, Israeli Jews are less likely to be willing to make the difficult concessions that peace with the Palestinians calls for.

June 4th, 2010 Year 7, Issue 18

Jun-04-2010 | Comments (2)

Followups

* Naqba (Thanks, Gabe!) Al Jazeera has an interesting piece by a Muslim activist who argues against fighting the ban on the naqba on the grounds that there are more important battles: “the face veil is not the same as the headscarf and banning new minarets is nothing like rendition, torture and the invasion and occupation of Arab and Muslim nations. The challenge now facing Muslim and non-Muslim European social activists is to win over a majority by NOT playing into the hands of the xenophobic Right.”

* BDS Although opposed to the UC boycott, divestment and sanctions proposal, Principled Opposition dismisses many of the arguments against it, in a balanced and intelligent piece. “Opponents of the bill say that it singles out Israel. Yes, of course it does. The purpose of the bill is to oppose, in a practical way, Israel’s occupation…. the argument that as long as there are worse crimes in the world Israel should be left alone is not only specious and disingenuous, it is quite dangerous. Are we then to understand that until crimes grow to the magnitude of Bosnia, Rwanda or even Nazi Germany we should be doing nothing about them? If there is murder committed in a city, does that mean the police should ignore rape cases until the murderers are all caught? The notion is absurd.”

* Thailand A fascinating and passionate piece from Znet about the extent to which Western Media distorted and denied the meaning of what was happening in Bangkok. “Early on it appeared that no one visiting the Red Shirts stronghold at the Ratchaprasong area in Bangkok could ignore the pleas of protesters for social justice. While the military coup against Thaksin Shinavatra remained one of the main grievances of the rebels, the issue was gradually fading, replaced by much more urgent ones. Thaksin’s images gave way to the red stars on the hats and jackets of defenders of the barricades. Most readers of Western media reports would have no clue that this was happening. Practically all talk about poverty and discrimination and arrogance of ruling elites quickly disappeared from dispatches of major press agencies. Expressions like struggle for social justice became completely self-censored by journalists in almost all English language publications and wire services.”

3. Shifting US Middle East Policy

Apr-16-2010 | Comments (0)

Bird’s-Eye: And as everything is linked to everything else in the is modern world, the change in Palestinian actions detailed above is producing a real and measurable change in American attitudes. We start with the numbers, clearly compiled and presented in “Informed Comment”, Juan Cole’s blog, which also has the second piece, a look at what happens if a long term solution isn’t reached. The Christian Science Monitor looks at the new concept of parallel states rather than separate states, Tikkun Magazine offers an excellent smorgasbord of the arguments in the US about BDS, and Nadia Hijab looks at what Petraeus is saying about the US role in the Middle East. Lots of reading…but you’ll be so informed when you’re done….

* US Attitudes, Discourse on Israel Shifting to Realism Juan Cole Informed Comment

More American Jews want a Palestinian state than do not want one according to a just-released survey of American Jewish opinion by the American Jewish Congress (48% to 45%). Admittedly, 67% of the general American public supports a Palestinian state, but that nearly half of American Jews do, as well, shows that this issue is controversial only because a few far rightwing fringe elements are supported by a small number of extremely wealthy Christian Zionists and Wall Street types…. Some 64% of American Jews are also in favor of dismantling ’some’ settlements on the West Bank to get peace, and nearly one in ten want all settlements disbanded. Among Americans in general, only 49% say Israel should be required to stop building settlements as part of a peace deal. It isn’t exactly the same question, but it may be that Jewish Americans are more flexible on this issue than are American gentiles, and they are certainly more flexible than are Republican Christians.

* Obama Hints Two-State Solution May be Impossible Juan Cole Informed Comment

‘ The two sides “may say to themselves, ‘We are not prepared to resolve these issues no matter how much pressure the United States brings to bear,’” Obama said. Obama reiterated that peace is a vital goal, but one that may be beyond reach “even if we are applying all of our political capital.”‘

Obama may well be right. But note the implications of no progress between Israel and the Palestinians on political settlement of their dispute:

1. Iran– the primary rejectionist state in the region, will grow in power and popularity in the Middle East

2. Anger in the Arab world toward Israel and the US will grow in intensity

3. Israeli policy toward East Jerusalem could itself be the cause for a war. Jerusalem is sacred to Muslims and Christians as well as to Jews.

4. Israel’s status as a de facto Apartheid state will be made permanent and the boycott movement will grow, ultimately affecting the Israeli economy

5. The two-state solution is dead as a doornail, and Israel will either have to give the Palestinians citizenship, or face a long and bitter struggle by the Palestinians to make their state in the teeth of Israeli opposition.

* A Parallel State Structure The Christian Science Monitor

The situation has come to a deadlock. It is time for a rethink.

… Essentially, the idea suggests the creation of two-state structures on the same land, both covering the whole territory, both providing the freedom for their citizens – Israelis and Palestinians – to live between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.

The most important innovation of a parallel state structure is that state sovereignty would be linked primarily with the individual citizen, and only in a secondary way with territory. Separating the territorial and citizenship/identity dimensions of sovereignty would allow Israelis and Palestinians to retain their national symbols, have political and legislative bodies that are responsible to their own electorate, and retain a high degree of political independence.

* Voices Heard: The BDS Debate Tikkun Magazine

Rather than charge in with our own position, Tikkun decided that we would be most helpful by respecting the intelligence of our own readers to decide on their own what they think of the current debarte about the Student Senate Bill calling for divestment from two companies that help Israel maintain the Occupation of the West Bank.

As you will see, this is a debate that has strong opponents of the Occuaption on BOTH SIDES of the issue.

* Parsing Petraeus Nadia Hijab Counterpunch

However, less attention has been paid to the second half of this much-quoted sentence from the Petraeus testimony: “The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR” (Area of Responsibility).

Thus, the United States “has substantial strategic interests in, and related to, the region.” Specifically, the security of U.S. citizens and their homeland; regional stability; international access to strategic resources, critical infrastructure, and markets; and the promotion of human rights, the rule of law, responsible and effective governance, and broad-based economic growth and opportunity. The rest of the testimony describes how the U.S. armed forces in Central Command use the taxpayer money allocated by Congress to advance these interests.

RSS Feed

3. The Israeli Fall

July 16th, 2010 :: Year 7, Issue 25

3. Looking at BDS

June 4th, 2010 Year 7, Issue 18

3. Shifting US Middle East Policy

Categories

Blog Roll

Tags