Sunday, February 22, 2009

CUPE's Academic Boycott

The University workers of the Canadian Union of Public Employees of Ontario (CUPE) have passed a motion calling for the academic boycott of Israel. CUPE is Ontario's largest union, representing 200,000 workers. While I'm pessimistic that such an action would actually lead to any significant reassessment of the relationships between Canadian universities and Israeli institutions, I am buoyed by the significance of the resolution (which faced intense opposition from the pro-Israeli lobby) and I'm hopeful that this will at least get the 200,000 CUPE members talking about what's going on in Palestine.

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/591429

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

More Naomi Klein on Boycotts

On the Question of One-Sided Boycotts
By Naomi Klein - January 21st, 2009
Read a letter exchange between Robert Pollin, co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, and Naomi on the question of one-sided boycotts.
Robert Pollin:
I strongly oppose Naomi Klein’s proposal to begin boycotts and divestment initiatives against Israel, similar to the approach used against South Africa in the apartheid era [“Lookout,” Jan. 26]. Klein anticipates four objections to her proposal and offers responses. But her list ignores the most important and obvious objection: it is entirely one-sided both in blaming Israel for the horrible cycle of violence in the region and in meting out punishment.
I agree entirely that the Israeli occupation is brutal. But Hamas is also brutal. To date, the only thing preventing Hamas from being less lethal than Israel in the damage it inflicts is its limited resources. Hamas is deliberately firing rockets into Israel with the aim of killing and terrorizing civilians. Should Iran, for example, succeed in supplying Hamas with more effective weapons, Hamas will become more successful in killing and terrorizing Israeli citizens. Rockets are beginning to land only twenty miles south of Tel Aviv.
The toll on Palestinian civilians of the current Israeli attack on Gaza is horrible. But let’s also recognize that Hamas is deliberately using civilians as human shields. The bomb that hit the home of Hamas leader Nazar Rayyan in Jabaliya tragically killed his wives and children as well as himself. Why was Rayyan exposing his family to such danger?
I agree with Klein that economic levers probably have the best chance of dramatically shifting the status quo (even while, given the history and emotions involved, economic initiatives could never offer a sufficient solution on their own). But instead of a one-sided boycott to punish Israel, why not pursue a positive agenda of economic development that would benefit both sides? Consider, for example, a development aid package on the order of $10 bil-lion, spread over two to four years, with funds supplied on an equitable basis from the United States, the European Union and the Arab oil-exporting countries. This amount would be enough to: (1) undertake a massive infrastructure investment and job creation program in Gaza and the West Bank to help create an economically viable Palestinian state; and (2) comfortably resettle the roughly half-million Israelis now living in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem and turn over these communities and homes to Palestinians. This second initiative would entail a large-scale home-building, community infrastructure and job-creation program in Israel, perhaps concentrated in the less well-developed northern and southern regions.
The amount of money I’m suggesting seems large, of course. But $10 billion is only about 7 percent of what the United States spent in Iraq in 2007 and 5 percent of Saudi Arabia’s $194 billion in oil revenues in 2008. In short, the amount is modest in comparison with the opportunities it will create to contribute to an equitable and lasting peace in the region.
- Robert Pollin, co-director, Political Economy Research Institute University of Massachusetts
Naomi Klein Replies:
Robert Pollin believes that the biggest problem with the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) strategy is that it targets only one side in the conflict. For Pollin, this is a conflict between equally guilty parties deserving of equal punishment. It is not. Israel is the party that displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in 1948, annexed more of their land in 1967 and continues to occupy the land today. Occupiers and occupied people do not share the same responsibilities, which is why the duties and responsibilities of an occupying power are laid out in the Geneva Conventions—laws Israel violates with impunity.
Even if I were to accept Pollin’s argument that any sanction should punish both sides equally, we face a rather large problem. How does Professor Pollin propose that we punish Gazans more than they are being punished already? In case he has failed to notice, there is already a fierce campaign of boycotts and sanctions under way, and it is completely one-sided. I am referring, of course, to Israel’s brutal eighteen-month siege of Gaza, launched to teach Gazans a lesson for voting for Hamas in US-backed elections. As a direct result of this siege, Gazans have been deprived of lifesaving medicines, cooking fuel and paper—not to mention food. This is far more than a mere boycott; it’s “collective punishment,” as described by Richard Falk, United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. By contrast, the kind of legal boycott being called for by the BDS campaign would deprive Tel Aviv of some international concerts and, if it really got going, would cost Israel some foreign investment. It would not starve and sicken an entire people. In this context of actual one-sided punishment inflicted on Palestinians, sanctioned by the so-called civilized world, to complain of one-sided boycotts against Israel is, frankly, obscene.
As for the proposed $10 billion for a redevelopment/relocation fund, there is no doubt that if a just peace agreement is ever to be reached, a generous peace dividend will be required to make it work. But before we start handing out rewards for a nonexistent peace, Israel first has to decide that endless war is too costly. And that’s what the BDS strategy is for: to help Israel come to that eminently reasonable conclusion.
- Naomi Klein
Read more from Naomi Klein at www.naomiklein.org

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Amira Hass in Gaza

A heartbreaking story from Haaretz correspondent Amira Hass in Gaza.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1063768.html

Friday, February 13, 2009

In any other "civilized" society

Yesterday, a group of Palestinian youths threw stones at one of the hundreds of guard towers that line the Apartheid Wall between Israel and the West Bank. Israeli Border Police targeted, shot and killed the 14 year old boy they deemed to be the "ringleader". In any other civilized society, the execution of a 14 year old boy for what is essentially a non-violent act of civil disobedience would be called murder and that policeman would be tried in a court of law. This, however, is the Occupied Territories where the state sanctioned murder of unarmed teenagers is commonplace.
This is the entirety of the news story in Haaretz:
The Israel Border Police on Friday killed a 14-year-old Palestinian in Hebron during a clash between the Israeli forces and stone-throwing Palestinian youths. The IDF said dozens of Palestinians hurled rocks at a military guard tower next to an Israeli settlement in the West Bank city and a soldier shot the ringleader.


Chapters-Indigo Boycott

Here is the information some of you have been asking for about the Chapters-Indigo Boycott.

http://www.caiaweb.org/indigoboycott

Thursday, February 12, 2009

The "PMs" and "the Kingmaker"

Here are a couple of fun facts about the men and women at center stage in the Israeli Elections:

Tzipi Livni was a Mossad agent. Her father, Eitan Livni, was Chief Operations Officer for Irgun. Don't know what Irgun is? Well Irgun is... how would I describe it... the Hamas of Israel? He had been sentenced to 15 years in prison for his participation in the "terrorist" murder of six people. Then he escaped from jail and after the State of Israel was created he was elected to the Knesset for the Likud party. But I'm sure Tzipi is nothing like her father. She has others commit murder for her. Plus, shes not in the Likud party anymore!

Binyamin Netanyahu went to both MIT and Harvard which is why his English is so perfectly accented to deliver encouraging speeches at AIPAC meetings. He is the author of two books on "combatting terrorism" which as an Israeli politician must be fairly short books since there is only "one way to deal with terrorists". And as I mentioned in an earlier post, he quit the Cabinet of Ariel Sharon over the closing of Israeli settlements and the "withdrawal" of the Israeli military in Gaza. Remember: he doesn't recognize the right of a Palestinian State to exist. A cheery thought in terms of any future "peace talks".

And then there is Avigdor Lieberman about whom I've written too much already. Apart from his fascism, don't forget that Lieberman, like many Israeli politicians, is currently being investigated for criminal acts. The investigation pertains to alleged bribes received by Lieberman over the development of the Oasis Casino outside of Jericho.

At least none of them are rapists (as far as we know) since thats the role of the President.

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Likud will win...

With Kadima up one seat it looks like Livni's party will "win" the election. Two things make it unlikely that Livni will actually be the next Prime Minister though...

1. Unless she makes an agreement with either Likud (unlikely) or Yisrael Beiteinu she won't be able to garner enough seats in coalition to make her the next PM. I can't see Likud agreeing to any power sharing agreement where Netanyahu isn't the PM, especially when they only have one or two seats less than Kadima. The question then, is how far to the right is Israel's "centrist" party anyway? The only real option for them is Yisrael Beiteinu, Lieberman's fascist party. In which case, it still doesn't matter if it's Livni or Netanyahu.

2. Apparently the thousands of Israelis stationed on military bases around the country have yet to have their votes tallied. I've said it before: a nation of conscripts is bad for the collective psychology of any society, and one can only imagine what sort of voting mind frame a soldier is in. My guess: Likud will have overwhelming support. We'll see in the next few days.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Election Day in Israel

Today is election day in Israel.
I think this election will be one of the most important in Israel's history. Likud is ahead in the polls with a slight margin over Kadima. Yisrael Beitnu, Avigdor Lieberman's ultra-nationalist/fascist party sits in third. Here is Haaretz's latest poll figures. Keep in mind, governments in Israel are formed through coalitions. Haaretz's is referring to the two most likely coalitions: a right-wing, religious bloc, and a "centrist-left" bloc.
The final Haaretz poll before the election suggested a strong right-wing bloc, comprising Likud with 27 seats, Yisrael Beiteinu on 18 seats, ultra-Orthodox Shas with nine seats and a combined veteran party National Union and fledgling Habayit Hayehudi (the Jewish home) on six seats. According to the poll, a center-left bloc would only be able to muster 54 seats, six short of the 61-seat threshold needed to form a majority coalition. This bloc would consist of Kadima with 25 seats, Labor on 14 seats, New Movemment-Meretz on 7 seats, Jewish-Arab party Hadash on three seats, the United Arab List-Ta'al on three seats and predominantly Arab Balad with two seats.
There are two things that make me say that this is the most important election in Israeli history since Begin's Likud party defeated Labour in 1977.
1. Yisrael Beiteinu is projected to win 18 seats. If you've been reading my posts from the last couple of weeks you know that Yisrael Beiteinu is Avigdor Lieberman's party. If this poll is accurate, fewer Israelis are going to vote for the founding "natural governing party" of the State of Israel (Labour), than they will for a party whose platform calls for ethnic cleansing. I think that this is a monumental shift in Israeli voting patterns. The emergence of Kadima as a centrist party alternative to Labour on the left and Likud on the right becomes a historical footnote when more people vote for a fascist party than the party of David Ben Gurion.
Lieberman has drawn comparisons to French National Front founder Jean-Marie Le Pen for his open hatred of non-Jews. But his position that all non-Jewish Israeli citizens (meaning the Arab-Israelis who live in Israel, about 20% of the population) should have to take a Loyalty Oath is a first step in his preferred solution to the Palestinian question. Lieberman wants all Arab Israelis to be forcibly transferred to Jordan. Keep in mind that nearly all Arab-Israelis are descendants of Palestinian residents who did not leave or were not evicted in 1948 and have lived in Israel all of their lives, since non-Jews cannot immigrate and become Israeli citizens.
Mainstream media in North America, to their credit, have seen the proposition of the Loyalty Oath and made the Le Pen comparison. Of course, no one would dare make the inevitable next step and admit that a fascist proposing ethnic cleansing as a "solution" to the bothersome presence of a different race merits the comparison to another famous European racist.
2. This election is also significant because it comes on the heels of the Israeli military "offensive" in the Gaza Strip. Forget for a second, if you can, that the IDF killed or wounded 1500 children, and that most of the dozen Israeli casualties were soldiers killed by friendly fire. This was an all out assault on a civilian population in retaliation for rockets fired into southern Israel from the Gaza Strip.
And it was incredibly popular in Israel. So much so, it appears, that the parties that launched the assault, Kadima (Prime Minister Ehud Olmert) and Labour (Defense Minister Ehud Barak) that killed more than a thousand Palestinians, won't win the elections. It seems that what Israel needs is a government more eager to kill and to maintain the Occupation, not one that even maintains the pretense of a "Peace".
I'd like to say that this comes as an ironic counterpoint to the Barack Obama's election in the United States. I'd like to say that while the US, Israel's biggest fancier and unquestioning champion has chosen "Hope" as a political ideology, Israel has chosen the opposite. But the deep cynic in me doesn't think that this is true. If an Avigdor Lieberman didn't emerge at the height of suicide bombings in Israel, what has happened now, fifteen years later that sees a society prepared to elect a Likud-Yisrael Beiteinu coalition?
The answer to my own question borrows from another Obama saying: "Yes, we can". Israel can have it all. Occupation, a non existent Palestinian body politic, economic prosperity, and maybe, one day, and Arab free Israel. And they can do this because so many of us, in other parts of the world, will let them.

Monday, February 09, 2009

George Bisharat on Israel's attack on Gaza

George Bisharat is one of the most respected scholars dealing with legal dimensions of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Here is an article he wrote in the Seattle Times. I've pasted two links.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/02/06-9
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008708504_opinb05bisharat.html
Evidence suggests that Israel may have committed at least seven serious offenses during its Gaza invasion: launching a war of aggression (because Israel itself triggered the breakdown of a six-month truce, and therefore did not have a valid claim of self-defense); deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure; deliberate killings of civilians; collective punishment; illegal use of weapons, including white phosphorous; preventing care to the wounded; and disproportionate use of force.

Bisharat, in the end, is arguing for a boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) strategy that is very slowly gaining momentum in North America. For a well argued call for a BDS campaign see my earlier post from Naomi Klein.

Friday, February 06, 2009

On Gideon Levy's Netanyahu article

As I mentioned yesterday the prospect of Benjamin Netanyahu's impending election as Israel's Prime Minister is deeply disturbing. My disappointment hasn't exactly been alleviated by Gideon Levy's nihilistic call for Netanyahu's election. Levy wants Netanyahu to be elected so the "the veil will be lifted and the nation's true face revealed". The revelation would ostensibly be that Israel is a State founded upon the racist ideology of Zionism and that the majority of the population support the continuation of the brutal occupation of Palestine. That the idea of peace was a masquerade. That while Israel said it was "focused on peace and the end of the occupation", it did everything it could to "further entrench the occupation and distance any chance of a potential agreement".
So, with Netanyahu's election, Levy surmises that the world will finally be able to see Israel for what it is.
I like Gideon Levy quite a bit. I saw him deliver an impassioned talk in Montreal a few years ago without any notes. As one of the few Israelis reporting regularly from the Occupied Territories he's a rare voice for justice in a nation mostly deaf to the plight of their neighbours. A plight they've created.
But let me tell you why his article yesterday scares me.
In many ways, he's right. The election of Netanyahu will make Israel's contempt for a just peace with the Palestinians all the more apparent. What he doesn't mention is the strength of Avigdor Lieberman as well. Compared to Lieberman, Netanyahu looks like Israel's Barack Obama. Lieberman is the leader of the ultra-right wing Yisreal Beiteinu ("Israel is our Home"). His jump in the popular vote could make him, once again, a key player in the Knesset and secure him another big Cabinet position. As an advocate for the forcible transfer of Arabs from Israel (also known as "ethnic cleansing") his prominence in the Government should be another blow to the "masquerade" that Levy refers to.
But it won't.
What scares me most about Levy's hope for Netanyahu's election isn't that Netanyahu will make the Occupation more brutal (which it probably will). My fear isn't that his election reminds us that Israeli society, while not monolithic, is still by and large contemptuous of Palestinians (which it is). My fear is not that his election will lift the veil on the fraud that is the "peace process".
My fear is that the world will see this and still not care.

Thursday, February 05, 2009

Gideon Levy: "Let Netanyahu Win"

Benjamin Netanyahu will apparently be Israel's next prime minister. There is, however, something encouraging about that fact. Netanyahu's election will free Israel from the burden of deception: If he can establish a right-wing government, the veil will be lifted and the nation's true face revealed to its citizens and the rest of the world, including Arab countries. Together with the world, we will see which direction we are facing and who we really are. The masquerade that has gone on for several years will finally come to an end.
Netanyahu's election is likely to bring the curtain down on the great fraud - the best show in town - the lie of "negotiations" and the injustice of the "peace process." Israel consistently claimed these acts proved the nation was focused on peace and the end of the occupation. All the while, it did everything it could to further entrench the occupation and distance any chance of a potential agreement.
For 16 years, we have been enamored with the peace process. We talk and talk, babble and prattle, and generally feel great about ourselves; meanwhile the settlements expand endlessly and Israel turns to the use of force at every possible opportunity, aside from a unilateral disengagement which did nothing to advance the cause of peace.
With the election of a prime ministerial candidate who speaks of "economic peace," the naked truth will finally emerge. If, however, Tzipi Livni or Ehud Barak are elected, the self-delusion will simply continue. Livni herself is enamored with futile, useless and cowardly negotiations, and Barak has long abandoned the brave efforts he made in the past. The election of either will only perpetuate the vacuum. The world, including Washington, will breathe a sigh of relief that for once, Israel has elected a leadership that will pursue peace. But there is no chance of that happening.
The record of each of these candidates, and the positions they have championed until now, proves that what has been will continue to be. Livni and Barak will rush to every photo opportunity with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan. The Americans and Europeans will be pleased, but nothing will come out of it other than the sowing of a few more illusions. We will move from war to war, uprising to uprising, settlement to settlement, and the world will continue to delude itself into thinking an agreement is within reach. Hamas will grow stronger, Abbas weaker and the last chance for peace will be irretrievably lost.
Netanyahu would offer something else. First, he is a faithful representative of an authentic "Israeli" view - an almost complete distrust of Arabs and the chance of reaching peace with them, mixed with condescension and dehumanization. Second, he will finally arouse the world's rage towards us, including that of the new U.S. administration. Sadly, this may be the only chance for the kind of dramatic change that is needed.
The Palestinian Authority, another mendacious facade, will finally collapse, and Israel will face the non-partner it has wanted and sought all these years. The world may not rush to embrace Netanyahu as it would the "moderates" - Livni or Barak, who have led Israel to more unnecessary wars than Netanyahu, the "extremist" - while the real difference between them is almost non-existent.
Lifting the veil will lead to a crisis situation, which unfortunately is the only one that can bring about change. We must hope that both Kadima and Labor do not join a Netanyahu government (regrettably, another futile hope), as Israel's exposure will then be that much starker. A government composed of Netanyahu, Shas and Avigdor Lieberman will not, of course, have to deal with an opposition of Netanyahu, Shas and Avigdor Lieberman, and may therefore behave differently once in power than one might expect. Have we mentioned Menachem Begin?
But even if Netanyahu is the same old Netanyahu, this will be an opportunity to place the right's policies under the microscope. Let's see him stand before Barack Obama and speak of the grotesque idea of "economic peace," or wage foreign or security policies according to his stated positions. Let's see him answer just what exactly his vision is for 20 to 30 years down the road.
In due course, his anticipated failure may just hasten an alternative route, on condition that Kadima and Labor do not join the government and bring us another year of fraud. The lemons may yet yield lemonade - maybe the establishment of a right-wing government will remove all of the masks for good. The alternative, known and expected by all, is far more ambiguous, dangerous and threatening.
So let Netanyahu win. There is no alternative at this point anyway.

Oh Bibi...

I heard on the radio this morning that polling for Isreal's elections next week is suggesting that Benjamin (Binyamin, "Bibi") Netanyahu will be Israel's next Prime Minister (again).

Here are the quick highlights of Netanyahu's career: Elected Likud leader in 1993, Prime Minister from 1996-1999, cabinet minister (Foreign, Finance) from 2002-2005, reelected Likud leader in August 2007.

But now the lowlights...

Netanyahu resigned from the Cabinet in August of 2005 after Sharon (then Likud leader) implemented his "Gaza Disengagement Plan".

Netanyahu has repeatedly claimed that in terms of negotiations with the Palestinians he would 1. never negotiate with pre-conditions, 2. never negotiate over Jerusalem, 3. never surrender the Golan Heights.

Netanyahu opened a new exit for the Western Wall Tunnel in 1996, sparking riots that killed 70 Palestinians and 16 Israeli soldiers.

Netanyahu, like most Israeli politicians, has been implicated in corruption allegations.

Netanyahu does not support the creation of a Palestinian State (and thus, refuses to recognize their "right to exist").

As disturbing as the return of Israel's "right-wing" party to power is, it's not the thing that worries me most about next weeks elections. What is truly frightening is the likelihood that hundreds of thousands of Israelis will vote for Avigdor Lieberman.