A couple of recent updates

A change at work has kept me from posting anything in the last two+ weeks. Here are a couple of items that you may find interesting:

A major scandal is brewing in Washington. Apparently a very senior Democratic Congresswoman was caught on an wiretap talking to an alleged Israeli spy. The report is that she is overheard making a deal to pressure the Department of Justice to drop an espionage case against two AIPAC lobbyists/Israeli spies in exchange for AIPAC lobbying to have her appointed to a powerful Intelligence Committee seat.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=hsnews-000003098436&mp=Most_Viewed

Britain is reportedly reexamining their Arms Export agreements with Israel. Enough pressure has mounted in the UK that the Labour government is reviewing all the weapons exports "in light of recent events in Gaza".

http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/world/2009/04/21/D97MV1DG0_eu_britain_israel/index.html

I want to write a bit about the Durban conference. I'll try and have something posted tomorrow.

Does Jason Kenney understand the Internet?

Jason Kenney's decision to bar George Galloway from entering Canada is ridiculous not the least because he has only given George Galloway and the Anti-War and Anti-Apartheid movement more attention but because Galloway's talk would be broadcast online for EVERYONE to watch. Had he not been barred, his talk would have circulated online primarily among those already familiar with his message. Now, thanks to Jason Kenney, thousands will watch any number of the versions of his speaking engagements that had been denied him.

Jason Kenney is an idiot.

Part One


Part Two


Part Three


Part Four


Part Five

"Balance"

Following Terry Cormier's statement that the resolution deploring Israeli settlement expansion was not "balanced" I wanted to post something quickly about the concept of "balance" which, in Canada at least, seems to be the the most important requirement of late when talking about the Occupation of Palestine.

I think this issue really picked up steam following the Israeli assault on Gaza in December. Media outlets were especially careful to appear "balanced" even when reporting largely of the carnage wrought by Israel. It seems - as you saw in my post about the IDF t-shirts depicting cross hairs on a pregnant Palestinian - that regardless of the story, a comment has to be made that shows "balance". The IDF can produce incredibly offensive and hateful t-shirts promoting war crimes, but as long as the reporter makes a reference to the fact that Hamas does bad things to Israelis - the newspaper is "balanced".

We really need a more fundamental understanding of just how insidious this idea of "balance" is, and what it really implies.

It implies that there are no victims. That Israeli actions (be they t-shirts or new settlements) are - despite being crimes - reactions to some sort of incitement by the Palestinians.

It implies that Palestinians somehow have as much control over their institutions as the Israelis - ignoring the 40 years of degradation to Palestinian civil society by the Occupation.

Ultimately though, and most importantly I would suggest, it implies that there can be no moral judgements. This, I think, should be the most troubling for the neoconservatives whose approach to foreign policy is Manichean at best. Conservatives are not the moral relativists that they accuse liberals of being. Yet this need for "balance" in the face of actions that are morally reprehensible bankrupts them of this position. No longer do we talk about rape victims "asking for it" - we've recognized that a crime is a crime. I can only hope that our diplomats and newspapers eventually do the same.

Canada a key ally to Israel at the UN

Canada, a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, consistently voted in lock step with the Israeli position on a number of key resolutions on March 26th.

While the votes aren't enforceable - since Israel doesn't abide by International Law anyway - they remain a largely symbolic representation of the international community's discomfort with Israel's 41 year Occupation of Palestine.

The most amazing vote came with Resolution A/HRC/10/L.5 which "deplores" the recent announcement that Israel will begin the expansion of a new housing settlement in the Occupied Palestinian Territory - The West Bank. These settlements are regarded by everyone familiar with this conflict as one of the KEY obstacles to any future Peace agreement. Even George Bush routinely stated that their expansion needed to stop immediately. It seems utterly inconceivable that a democratic country like Canada would vote against a resolution "deploring" their expansion.

Terry Cormier, the Canadian representative, said that Canada would vote against the resolution, unlike other countries like The United Kingdom and France, because the resolution "was not balanced and did not refer to the Palestinian obligation". I don't understand how a violation of International Law and a universally accepted obstacle to peace requires a "balanced" resolution. The Palestinians are not occupying Israeli territory, nor are they confiscating Israeli territory for their own expansion. There is no balance to the settlement issue. If there is no balance to the power dynamic between the best equipped military in the world and a stateless people with homemade rockets, I have no idea how there would be balance to this issue. Canada and it's neoconservative government is once again in bed with Israel's far right.

UN Link:

http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/4C99B0F4E7BC7EE8C1257585007B5D90?opendocument

Galloway and JDL Leader Meir Weinstein

Here's a great YouTube video from Channel 4 News in Britain. It's an exchange between George Galloway and Meir Weinstein, the "Director of the Jewish Defense League of Canada". This exchange between Galloway and Weinstein is an embarrassment to this country. That Weinstein and his organization can claim to have policy impact on the Conservative government of Canada is shameful especially when considered in light of these two points:

1. Weinstein and the JDL, in this video, claim they will "look into" those who had invited Galloway to Canada. This should not sit well with the 2.9 million members of Canada's largest Protestant denomination, the United Church...

2. The JDL is considered a Terrorist Group by the US State Department and the FBI.

Good link:

http://mostlywater.org/

Jewish Defense League taking credit for Galloway ban

It seems that the Jewish Defense League of Canada is claiming credit for having George Galloway barred from entering Canada. The Conservatives are claiming that they have not interfered with the Border Services Agency. But they seem very keen on listing all of the reasons why Galloway should not be allowed in. The "infandous street-corner Cromwell" line is getting a lot of negative attention in the British media. "Infandous" is such a self-aggrandizing and pretentious word that it's not in our office dictionary nor is it recognized by my spellcheck. Way to go Alykahn Velshi!

One thing that seems to be lacking in the Macleans article is noting that while "Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization in Canada", The Jewish Defense League is listed as a terrorist organization in the United States.

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=n0325154A

George Galloway on being barred from speaking in Canada

Canada can't muzzle me

To ban me from the country for my views on Afghanistan is absurd, hypocritical, and in vain

George Galloway

The Guardian, Saturday 21 March 2009

The Canadian immigration minister Jason Kenney gazetted in the Sun yesterday morning that I was to be excluded from his country because of my views on Afghanistan. That's the way the rightwing, last-ditch dead-enders of Bushism in Ottawa conduct their business.

Kenney is quite a card. A quick trawl establishes he's a gay-baiter, gung-ho armchair warrior, with an odd habit of exceeding his immigration brief. Three years ago he attacked the pro-western Lebanese prime minister, Fuad Siniora, for being ungrateful to Canada for its support of Israeli bombardment of his country. Most curiously of all, in 2006 he addressed a rally of the so-called People's Mujahideen of Iran, a Waco-style cult, banned in the European Union as a terrorist organisation. On one level being banned by such a man is like being told to sit up straight by the hunchback of Notre Dame or being lectured on due diligence by Conrad Black. On another, for a Scotsman to be excluded from Canada is like being turned away from the family home.

But what are my views on Afghanistan which the Canadian government does not want its people to hear? I've never been to Afghanistan, nor have I ever met a Taliban, but my first impression into the parliamentary vellum on the subject was more than two decades ago. At the time the fathers of the Taliban were "freedom fighters", paraded at US Republican and British Tory conferences. Who knows, maybe even the Canadian right extolled these god-fearing opponents of communism. I did not, however.

On the eve of their storming of Kabul I told Margaret Thatcher that she "had opened the gates to the barbarians" and that "a long, dark night would now descend upon the people of Afghanistan". With the same conviction, I say to the Canadian and other Nato governments today that your policy is equally a profound mistake. From time to time and with increased regularity it is a crime. Like the bombardment of wedding parties and even funerals or the presiding over a record opium crop, which under our noses finds its way coursing through the veins of young people from Nova Scotia to Newcastle upon Tyne. But it is worse than a crime, as Tallyrand said, it's a blunder.

The Afghans have never succumbed to foreign occupation, heaven knows the British empire tried, tried and failed again. Not even Alexander the Great succeeded, and whoever else he is, minister Kenney is no Alexander the Great. Young Canadian soldiers are dying in significant numbers on Afghanistan's plains. Their families are entitled to know how many of us believe this adventure to be similarly doomed and that genuine support for troops - British, Canadian and other - means bringing them home and changing course.

To ban a five-times elected British MP from addressing public events or keeping appointments with television and radio programmes is a serious matter. Kenney's "spokesman" told the Sun, "Galloway's not coming in ... end of story." Alas for him, it's not. Canada remains a free country governed by law and my friends are even now seeking a judicial review. And there are other ways I can address those Canadians who wish to hear me.

More than half a century ago Paul Robeson, one of the greatest men who ever lived, was forbidden to enter Canada not by Ottawa but by Washington, which had taken away his passport. But he was still able to transfix a vast crowd of Vancouver's mill hands and miners with a 17-minute telephone concert, culminating in a rendition of the Ballad of Joe Hill. Technology has moved on since then. And so from coast to coast, minister Kenney notwithstanding, I will be heard - one way or another.

• George Galloway is Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow gallowayg@parliament.uk

Those IDF T-Shirts

The Israeli Defense Forces have promised to discipline soldiers in their military who created and distributed these T-Shirts.

Although these t-shirts are reprehensible they don't really surprise me. Nor do I think that the Israelis would be alone in creating something so disgusting. I am not surprised though, that the Israelis felt so comfortable with this depiction that they made T-Shirts out of them (the IDF is big on t-shirts glorifying their military - you can buy them online and can occasionally see them in the streets in North America - a sort of anti-keffiyah for the ignorant).

Israeli society is increasingly willing to dehumanize the Arabs in their midst (see any post on Avigdor Lieberman's election success) and these t-shirts, I think, are largely symptomatic of an increasingly unspoken sentiment. Not to mention, of course, the obvious connection to the "demographic bomb" that is so often discussed in Israel (this is the increasing gap between Jewish Israeli birth rates and immigration, and Palestinian/Arab-Israeli birth rates).

After reading the article in The Star last night on my couch I was particularly bothered by one editorial move I came across. It's this paragraph:

In Gaza, Hamas spokesperson Fawzi Barhoum said it "reflects the brutal mentality among the Zionist soldiers and the Zionist society." Hamas-controlled media consistently glorify attacks on Israelis and mock Israeli suffering.

I'm disappointed with the fact that The Star feels that it needs to print a paragraph that, one presumes, was added to combat any potential claim of imbalance. There is no need for a quote from Hamas in an article about the dress habits of the IDF. Can a criticism of these t-shirts not rest on the fact that they are immoral and disgusting in and of themselves? I think it's unlikely, for instance, that in the wake of the beating death of Shidane Arone at the hands of Canadian soldiers in Somalia in 1993, that articles printed about the incident would point out that, in fact, Somalis in Belet Huen are thieves. Am I wrong about this? Does the creation of these t-shirts require a comment from Hamas at all?

http://www.thestar.com/article/607173

George Galloway barred from entering Canada

Canadian border officials have barred George Galloway, a British Member of Parliament for the last 22 years, from entering Canada on "national security grounds".

Galloway will be in the United States (which he is allowed to visit) and had planned on making a few stops in Canada for speaking engagements.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/03/22/canada-bansbritishmp.html

Freeman's Parting Shot (It's Brilliant)

"You will by now have seen the statement by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair reporting that I have withdrawn my previous acceptance of his invitation to chair the National Intelligence Council.

I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office. The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue. I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country. I agreed to chair the NIC to strengthen it and protect it against politicization, not to introduce it to efforts by a special interest group to assert control over it through a protracted political campaign.

As those who know me are well aware, I have greatly enjoyed life since retiring from government. Nothing was further from my mind than a return to public service. When Admiral Blair asked me to chair the NIC I responded that I understood he was “asking me to give my freedom of speech, my leisure, the greater part of my income, subject myself to the mental colonoscopy of a polygraph, and resume a daily commute to a job with long working hours and a daily ration of political abuse.” I added that I wondered “whether there wasn’t some sort of downside to this offer.” I was mindful that no one is indispensable; I am not an exception. It took weeks of reflection for me to conclude that, given the unprecedentedly challenging circumstances in which our country now finds itself abroad and at home, I had no choice but accept the call to return to public service. I thereupon resigned from all positions that I had held and all activities in which I was engaged. I now look forward to returning to private life, freed of all previous obligations.

I am not so immodest as to believe that this controversy was about me rather than issues of public policy. These issues had little to do with the NIC and were not at the heart of what I hoped to contribute to the quality of analysis available to President Obama and his administration. Still, I am saddened by what the controversy and the manner in which the public vitriol of those who devoted themselves to sustaining it have revealed about the state of our civil society. It is apparent that we Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends.

The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.

There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.

The outrageous agitation that followed the leak of my pending appointment will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues. I regret that my willingness to serve the new administration has ended by casting doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the interests of the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government.

In the court of public opinion, unlike a court of law, one is guilty until proven innocent. The speeches from which quotations have been lifted from their context are available for anyone interested in the truth to read. The injustice of the accusations made against me has been obvious to those with open minds. Those who have sought to impugn my character are uninterested in any rebuttal that I or anyone else might make.

Still, for the record: I have never sought to be paid or accepted payment from any foreign government, including Saudi Arabia or China, for any service, nor have I ever spoken on behalf of a foreign government, its interests, or its policies. I have never lobbied any branch of our government for any cause, foreign or domestic. I am my own man, no one else’s, and with my return to private life, I will once again – to my pleasure – serve no master other than myself. I will continue to speak out as I choose on issues of concern to me and other Americans.

I retain my respect and confidence in President Obama and DNI Blair. Our country now faces terrible challenges abroad as well as at home. Like all patriotic Americans, I continue to pray that our president can successfully lead us in surmounting them."

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/10/freeman_speaks_out_on_his_exit

Chas Freeman Out of Running

Well I came to the dance a little late I suppose. I found out this morning that Freeman has withdrawn his nomination. Apparently the statement he made when he withdrew is a great read. I'll look for it and post it shortly.

In the meantime, here's Andrew Sullivan - one of the few "conservative" bloggers who supported Freeman - on Freeman's withdrawal.

There are a couple of things worth noting about this minor, yet major, Washington spat. The first is that the MSM has barely covered it as a news story, and the entire debate occurred in the blogosphere. I don't know why. But that would be a very useful line of inquiry for a media journalist.
The second is that Obama may bring change in many areas, but there is no possibility of change on the Israel-Palestine question. Having the kind of debate in America that they have in Israel, let alone Europe, on the way ahead in the Middle East is simply forbidden. Even if a president wants to have differing sources of advice on many questions, the Congress will prevent any actual, genuinely open debate on Israel. More to the point: the Obama peeps never defended Freeman. They were too scared. The fact that Obama blinked means no one else in Washington will ever dare to go through the hazing that Freeman endured. And so the chilling effect is as real as it is deliberate.
When Obama told us that the resistance to change would not end at the election but continue every day after, he was right. But he never fought this one. He's shrewder than I am.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/

The appointment of Charles "Chas" Freeman

Most people, especially Canadians, haven't heard much of anything about the battle taking place right now in Washington over the nomination of Charles "Chas" Freeman as the Chair of the National Intelligence Council by Barack Obama's Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair. That's the role responsible for culling information from the dozen or so American intelligence organizations and producing National Intelligence Estimates that are increasingly vital in American foreign policy (unless you ignore them... Bush). Freeman has been an American diplomat for decades holding posts in China and Thailand and most notably was US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Most recently, he has been the President of the Middle East Policy Council, the post in which he made "controversial" comments that have formed the basis of the attack campaign against him. I'll post some of those comments shortly but suffice to say that there is no basis for these attacks (surprise!) by the Israel Lobby. They're measured comments about American Foreign Policy - something that is largely absent from the discourse.

There's an excellent post by Glenn Greenwald of salon.com that summarizes the ongoing controversy with great skill. Here's an excerpt and the link below.

It's destructive enough to artificially limit debate on a matter as consequential as U.S. policy towards Israel. We've been doing that for many years now. But it's so much worse that the people who have been defining and dictating those limits are themselves extremists in every sense of that word when it comes to Israel and U.S. policy towards that country. Their demands that no distinctions be recognized between Israeli and Americans interests have been uniquely destructive for the U.S. Few things are more urgent than an expansion of the debate over U.S. policy in this area, which is exactly why this radical lynch mob is swarming with such intensity to destroy Freeman's reputation and fortify the limitations on our debates which, for so long, they have thuggishly enforced.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/09/freeman/index.html

Closed Zone - Animated Short from Yoni Goodman

Here's a quick cartoon from Yoni Goodman, the Director of Animation of the Israeli film "Waltz with Bashir". If you haven't seen the Oscar nominated Waltz with Bashir, I recommend you do. It's a hauntingly gorgeous and troubling look at the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. I've pasted the trailer below as well.

Closed Zone - Animated Short


Waltz with Bashir Trailer (English)

http://waltzwithbashir.com/wwbtrailer.html

Hilary Clinton in Jerusalem

The CBC posted an article to their website that I think is a perfect example of the Kafkaesque farce that Middle East "Peace" has become. Here is the link to the article, with it's headline reading "US supports creation of Palestinian State: Clinton" followed by the sub heading "Says US envoys bound for Syria, pledges 'unshakeable' support for Israel".

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/03/03/clinton-mideast.html

What bothers me so much is that this article (which in the CBC's defense is really only straight up reporting of Clinton's visit to Jerusalem, her statements made there, and the policies of the Obama and Netanyahu administartions) is that it's makes no logical sense. Her statements are full of non sequiters and meaningless aphorisms.

Let me give you a few examples:

First, you cannot have "unshakeable support for Israel" while simultaneously supporting the creation of a Palestinian state. Maybe some of us define "unshakable" differently, but the election of a Netanyahu-Lieberman government in Israel should, at the very least, make your feelings towards Israel a little “shaky”. You cannot simultaneously “push vigorously” for a Palestinian State and have unshakeable support for Israel when it’s population has elected a government that does not recognize the legitimacy or right of a Palestinian State to exist.

Second, the Obama administration, it suggests, might “clash” with the Netanyahu administration unless it pursues the continuation of a “Peace process” with the Palestinians. I’m fascinated to know how Obama and Clinton are going to judge the earnestness with which Netanyahu will approach Peace. The history of Peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians is well documented. If the supposed “doves” of Israeli governments past negotiated with the Palestinians in bad faith I can only imagine how Netanyahu will handle such talks. All the more so considering the charter of his own party promises never to concede anything to the Palestinians.

Lastly, I don’t think I need to say too much about the absolute hypocrisy of a statement like “We will work with the government of Israel that represents the democratic will of the people of Israel”. Hamas, the democratically elected government of the Palestinians that the US refuses to speak with has killed fewer Israelis in its “terrorist” attacks than the Israeli government has killed Palestinian children.

My prediction of where this is heading is, not surprisingly, pretty bleak. The Obama administration may in fact push a Netanyahu administration to the “peace table” for talks with the Palestinians. Obama and Clinton will claim a modicum of success in doing so and meanwhile Netanyahu and Lieberman will “negotiate” with obstinate Arabs all the while offering a nudge and a wink to the majority of Israelis who elected a government that refuses to recognize Palestine’s right to exist. Israel will continue the Occupation, Israel will continue to receive the vast majority of US foreign military aide, and Israel sit back and wait out the change in US administration. It’s already done so with eight previous Presidents.

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

More Naomi Klein on Boycotts

On the Question of One-Sided Boycotts

http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2009/01/question-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

Amira Hass in Gaza

A heartbreaking story from Haaretz correspondent Amira Hass in Gaza.

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

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.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1063981.html

Chapters-Indigo Boycott

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

http://www.caiaweb.org/indigoboycott

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.