Saturday, May 28, 2011

What Israel and Palestine are really saying

EVERY SO OFTEN




Illustration by Hugh Ralinovsky

Obama becomes so intolerable and disgusting, so war-like and spineless at the same time, more irritating than he usually is, it becomes worthwhile to remember how things could be.  In other words, if this be hell, what did we live through during the last administration?

It also reinforces our contention here that the strongest asset Obama has for the next election is the existence of the Republicans as they are currently configured as an alternative.

His weakest point is that he is so repugnant himself that many will not be able to hold their noses long enough to vote for him.


I would estimate that about 99.99% of Americans have no idea as to the meaning behind Nitwityahoo's position, such as it is.  This is because no media in the US will touch such clear analysis, not only because they are afraid of offending AIPAC, but because there is a logical flaw, a "catch-22" in the Israeli opinion(s) that, believe it or not, is too mind-bending for popular media to absorb.  This leaves it to non-profit, neutral, outlets to discuss.  Below is such a discussion, complete:

The future of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations remains in doubt after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address Tuesday before a joint session of the U.S. Congress. Netanyahu insisted Jerusalem will not be divided and that Israel’s internationally recognized 1967 borders are "indefensible." He also said Israel must “maintain a long-term military presence along the Jordan River” and condemned the recent Fatah-Hamas reconciliation deal. Netanyahu’s speech came five days after President Obama called for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, with mutually agreed land swaps. We speak with Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, secretary general of the Palestinian National Initiative. “Netanyahu yesterday blocked every possibility for negotiations for a two-state solution,” Barghouti says. “Practically, he took away any possibility for peaceful resolution, because he wanted to impose unilaterally the outcome on every issue... He wants us to live as slaves in a system of apartheid and segregation.” [includes rush transcript]
Guest:
Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, Secretary General of the Palestinian National Initiative. He is the president of the Palestinian Medical Relief Society and a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council.

Rush Transcript

This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, More...

Related Links

AMY GOODMAN: The future of negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians remain in doubt following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address on Tuesday before a joint session of Congress. Netanyahu insisted Jerusalem will not be divided and that Israel’s internationally recognized 1967 borders are "indefensible."
PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: I will be prepared to make a far-reaching compromise. This compromise must reflect the dramatic demographic changes that have occurred since 1967. The vast majority of the 650,000 Israelis who live beyond the 1967 lines reside in neighborhoods and suburbs of Jerusalem and greater Tel Aviv. Now these areas are densely populated, but they’re geographically quite small. And under any realistic peace agreement, these areas, as well as other places of critical, strategic and national importance, will be incorporated into the final borders of Israel.
AMY GOODMAN: Netanyahu also said Israel must, quote, "maintain a long-term military presence along the Jordan River," and he condemned the recent Fatah-Hamas reconciliation deal. Netanyahu’s speech came five days after President Obama called for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, with mutually agreed land swaps.
Joining us now in Washington, D.C., is Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, secretary general of the Palestinian National Initiative. He’s the president of the Palestinian Medical Relief Society and a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council.
Your response to Prime Minister Netanyahu in this joint address before the U.S. Congress, Dr. Barghouti?
DR. MUSTAFA BARGHOUTI: Well, First of all, let me say that what Mr. Netanyahu did yesterday was a presentation of—or actually, misrepresentation of the facts, a lot of lies. Obviously he believes that if he lies a lot and continues to lie, the lies become facts. He was falsifying history and falsifying facts and misleading people in the United States. When he said that Israel is too small, all he needed to say is to compare it with Palestine. I mean, what we are calling for here in two-state solution is a situation where Israel will be four times the size of Palestine, and still he speaks about it as if it’s a small country, but—and then comparing it with the United States.
In my opinion, Netanyahu yesterday blocked every possibility for negotiations for a two-state solution. Practically, he took away any possibility for peaceful resolution, because he wanted to impose unilaterally—he wanted to impose unilaterally the outcome on every issue—on the issue of Jerusalem, on the issue of borders, on the issue of settlements. And practically, his plan is clear: he wants us to live as slaves in a system of apartheid and segregation, he wants to continue the military occupation of the Palestinian territories, and he wants to block any possibility for a Palestinian statehood or Palestinian freedom.
More than that, I think some of what he said sounded totally delusional. When he spoke about the fact that the only place where Arabs can enjoy freedom and democracy is when they are ruled by Israel, I think this is something like saying that the place where women’s rights are most respected is Afghanistan. It’s totally delusional. He fails to see the fact that his country is practicing apartheid and segregation against the Palestinian population. He failed to see the fact that they have taken away the homes, the lands of the people who live under Israeli control and that Israel is practicing the worst form of violence against peaceful, nonviolent resistance that Palestinians are adopting today in trying to defend their rights for freedom and for dignity.
What is most shameful, in my opinion, really, was the response of the Congress to what Mr. Netanyahu said. In my opinion, the fact that he got 29 standing ovations and so many applause by the Congress people reflects an act of irresponsibility by the Congress, because by supporting such extremists, like Netanyahu, in this manner, by supporting such extreme positions by this Israeli government, which is nothing but a government of settlers that is falsifying history and reality, by doing so, they are practically supporting an act that is aiming at killing any possibility of peace. And that is irresponsible, not only towards Palestinians, not only towards peace; it’s an act of irresponsibility towards even the future of Israelis themselves, because the plan that Netanyahu proposed is nothing but a plan to assassinate and kill any opportunity for peace based on two-state solution. It’s a plan of enslavement of Palestinians. And we, as Palestinians, will never be accepting to be slaves of occupation or apartheid or the system of occupation that Mr. Netanyahu wants to consolidate on the ground.
AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Barghouti, I wanted to ask you about the comments that President Obama made last Thursday when he became the first U.S. president to explicitly call for Israelis and Palestinians to seek a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. This is what he said.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves and reach their full potential in a sovereign and contiguous state.
AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Barghouti, your response to President Obama?
DR. MUSTAFA BARGHOUTI: Well, unfortunately, I think Mr. Obama, President Obama, retreated from any of his comments in his speech in front of the AIPAC. And because he got criticized for identifying ’67 borders as the borders between Palestinian state, future state, and Israel, because of that criticism, he went further to describe what swaps mean. And according to him, swaps should take into consideration demographic realities, new demographic realities. But these demographic realities that he speaks about are about settlers, and these settlers are violating international law. And any presence of Israeli settlements in the occupied territory is in violation of international law, in violation of the International Court of Justice resolutions, and as such, could not be considered as facts that should be accepted.
The problem with the issue of swaps is that they could mean taking away any possibility for the viability of the Palestinian state, not only because of the size of these areas that would be swapped, but also because these areas include at least 85 percent of the water resources that Palestinians need in the West Bank. They take away water resources. These settlements blocs, if they are annexed to Israel, will definitely destroy the contiguity of territory in the Palestinian state, and they would destroy any possibility of the viability of the states. That’s why I think what President Obama said in his speech in the State Department is contradictive to what he said in front of the conference of AIPAC.
And when Mr. Netanyahu comes up with the plan he proposed, explaining that the Israeli army must remain on the borders, and then explaining that Jerusalem will never be divided again, and explaining that Israel will have to annex all these settlements, then practically we are not talking about a viable Palestinian contiguous state, but about a structure that would be nothing but clusters of bantustans, disconnected from each other and under a system of apartheid controlled by Israel.
AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Barghouti—
DR. MUSTAFA BARGHOUTI: The Israelis are calling it a state, but that means nothing because it has nothing that makes it a real state. It’s just clusters of bantustans. This is the plan that Netanyahu has, and the American president failed to pressure him to change this plan.
AMY GOODMAN: What is the significance of the Middle East peace envoy, George Mitchell, quitting?
DR. MUSTAFA BARGHOUTI: I believe now, in retrospect, when we see what has happened after his resignation, I think he has resigned because he failed. And he realized that his opinion was not taken into consideration, obviously, especially on issues like settlements. And I feel sorry for him, because he had done a good job with Ireland. Unfortunately, in the case of Palestine, he failed to pressure Israel. Maybe he did not have the support from his own administration to exercise any form of pressure on Israel. Especially that now, when we see this conflict growing, nobody is telling Israel at least stop the building of settlements on the ground, at least stop the facts on the ground. And that’s why I consider that Mr. Mitchell’s resignation is just a reflection of the fact that his mission failed, and probably that his views were not taken into consideration, and that the Israeli lobby is practically imposing the American policy in the Middle East. And that is something very dangerous. Again, I say this is something irresponsible, irresponsible in terms of the future of both Palestinians and Israelis, and irresponsible policy in terms of the future of stability in the Middle East.
AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Barghouti, you were in Cairo, with the coming together of Hamas and Fatah. The U.S. has criticized any group that would ally with Hamas. Your response to that, and the significance of this, how you see this fitting into the destiny of Palestine?
DR. MUSTAFA BARGHOUTI: It is totally un-understandable why they are criticizing the unity agreement between Palestinians. We’ve managed to convince Hamas to accept two-state solution, to accept the compromise of two-state solution. We’ve managed to convince Hamas to abstain from any form of violence and to abstain from any form of military actions and to stick totally with all of us to nonviolent form of resistance. We managed to convince Hamas to authorize President Abbas to represent all Palestinians. Isn’t that what they wanted? If we have managed to convince everybody to adopt nonviolence as a form of struggle for Palestinians, and if we managed to have a unified Palestinian camp that agrees and accepts two-state solution, then why this agreement is rejected?
Let me remind you that Mr. Netanyahu and his government has been saying that they cannot make a deal with President Abbas or move forward with negotiations, because President Abbas could not represent all Palestinians since he could not control Hamas or could not control Gaza. Now, President Abbas is allowed to represent all Palestinians, and Netanyahu is responding by saying, "You have to break up with Hamas, or we will not talk to you." What does that mean? He’s playing games here. This man is an expert in lying. This man is an expert in falsification. This man, Netanyahu, is an expert in misrepresenting facts.
AMY GOODMAN: Prime Minister Netanyahu, he has—
DR. MUSTAFA BARGHOUTI: And I am so sorry that people don’t see that.
AMY GOODMAN: He has been interviewed repeatedly on the networks in the United States, and he has repeatedly said, "We accept a Palestinian state. They do not accept a Jewish state. That is the problem," he said. "How do you negotiate with these people?" What is your response to that?
DR. MUSTAFA BARGHOUTI: That’s another big lie, because the problem with the Oslo agreement has been that the Palestinians, represented by the PLO, recognized Israel as a state. They recognized Israel. Israel did not recognize Palestine as a state. Up 'til now, Israel is not recognizing Palestine as a state, because what does it mean to say, "I accept you as a state, but I don't accept that you have borders, and I don’t accept that you have a capital, and I don’t accept that you have free trade, and I don’t accept that you have free economy"? This is just a false representation of reality. In reality, Palestinians have accepted Israel and have recognized Israel, and in exchange, all Israel did was to recognize PLO as a representative of Palestinians rather than recognizing the Palestinian state as such. If Mr. Netanyahu wants really to recognize the state, he should declare tomorrow that he agrees with what President Obama said, which is that we will have two-state solution on the basis of ’67 borders.
AMY GOODMAN: He said—
DR. MUSTAFA BARGHOUTI: That, he negated.
AMY GOODMAN: Netanyahu said—
DR. MUSTAFA BARGHOUTI: That, he is refusing.
AMY GOODMAN: Netanyahu said, "It’s time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say, 'I will accept a Jewish state.'"
DR. MUSTAFA BARGHOUTI: Well, Mr. Abbas has said repeatedly that he is recognizing Israel. And if we—if Israel is recognized as a Jewish state, then what happens to the one-and-a-half million Palestinians that Netanyahu is claiming have equal rights in Israel? They are not Jewish. This state should be democratic. A democratic state should fulfill the needs of all its people. Do you think—what would happen if somebody comes out and says the United States should be declared as a Catholic state or as a Protestant state? What will happen to the Jewish community in the United States then? In my opinion, each country should be recognized as a democratic state, which means all its citizens have equal rights. And that does not negate the needs of the Jewish population. That does not negate the history of the Jewish people and their suffering. On the contrary. If you want them to last in a good state, that state should be democratic and not based on discrimination and racist differentiation between people, as is the situation today in Israel.
AMY GOODMAN: So, you’re saying that you accept—
DR. MUSTAFA BARGHOUTI: In Israel today, you have apartheid discrimination against Arabs in Israel who are citizens of Israel. You have another level of discrimination against Palestinians living in Jerusalem, in East Jerusalem, where a Palestinian will not be allowed to marry a woman from a nearby city or village and live with her, because if he moves to live with her, he will lose his citizenship, and he would not be allowed to bring her into Jerusalem because he cannot give her citizenship. That’s a system of racial discrimination.
AMY GOODMAN: So—
DR. MUSTAFA BARGHOUTI: And there is a third level of apartheid which exists in the West Bank and Gaza. Yes, please?
AMY GOODMAN: So, Dr. Barghouti, you’re saying you accept Israel as a state, but not as a Jewish state?
DR. MUSTAFA BARGHOUTI: I am saying that pushing the issue of Jewishness of the state of Israel today is one way of putting the Palestinians again on the defense, while their state is not recognized. What is missing today is not Israel as a state. Israel is already a state. It is already a member of the United Nations. Israel now is the third largest military exporter in the world. It has the fifth largest army in the world. It has 400 nuclear weapons. It is not threatened. The people who are threatened are the Palestinians who are under occupation for 44 years, who have been dispossessed from their land since 63 years, and who don’t have freedom, don’t have democracy, and don’t have self-determination. The country that needs to be recognized today is Palestine. And Netanyahu is doing everything he can to obstruct us from going to the United Nations to ask for implementation of the same resolution that was taken in 1947 that gave Israel its legitimacy and said there should be a Palestinian, which never materialized. He is trying to block that. So, practically, the country, the state that needs to be recognized today is Palestine, because Israel is already recognized.
AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, I want to thank you for being with us. Dr. Barghouti, speaking to us from Washington, D.C.

Creative Commons License The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.
 

Friday, May 20, 2011

Obama and Palestine, Definitive Reactions

Compassion and Altruism are the first causalities of pain and illness.

That being said, I will try to continue this on a weekly basis.

My contacts in the Mideast, whom I have never met by have no reason to doubt, have made a few observations on Obama's speech yesterday, May 19, 2011.  The first comment, prior to the speech came from Egypt.  I understand that without exception, when asked if they were going to follow Obama's speech, people said "What speech?  What is he going to talk about?"

After the speech, response did not even rise to the level of tepid, although the remarks on the Palestine disaster were more animated.

The first and most excited response came from the Boss of Israel, Benny Nitwityahoo.  He said that the 1967 borders were "not defensible."

As one thinks about it, one realizes why Israel is so worried.  After all, they only have a few hundred nuclear bombs and the most advanced jet fighters in the world as well as attack helicopters.  On the other hand, the Palestinians, in addition to the sticks, rocks, and slingshots they had in years past, now also have some rifles and pistols.  It is in the Israeli and Zionist nature to find these odds overwhelming and frightening.

I now have what I think is some fairly definitive material to pass on relating to the situation, so I am presenting it here without further comment.

**********************

First are some remarks by some of you, followed by the pros and cons as broadcast today. 

I trust that readers here will find little difficulty in determining which is which as there will be no AIPAC interference nor any rabid rabbis.  Even Alan Derschowitz does get quoted so there can be no doubt as to the impartiality of this edition.

********************************

  
  Obama doesn't dare do anything, he won't even risk denying tax deductions for illegal West Bank settlements by
  wealthy Jewish ( I presume) Americans when Bibi tells us to go fly a kite.
  
  If the Prez does ANYTHING to hinder the Israel land-grab juggernaut, he'll be tarred and feathered as an anti-Semite, it's political suicide and he knows it.
  If AIPAC could retroactively impeach Jimmy Carter they would do so, after he published his quietly logical and oh so gentle-on-Israel book "Palestine,
  Peace, not Apartheid". 
  
  I honestly cannot think of a precedent for our refusal to condemn inhumane treatment of a people trapped by power we helped build.  But I'm probably just
  being naive and or ignorant.
  
  We've got more 'boots on the ground' in the Mideast than ever, so some
  are calling Obama 'the black Bush'.
  
  The deep serious changes still aren't being made, American imperialism is still
  running rampant.  We are strongly anti-Arab, and invade countries like Libya
  if a dictator ( we love dictators as long as they do what we ask)
  gets too independent.
  
  I'll be a believer, maybe, if Obama stands up to Bibi when he visits Washington.
  I don't think the figurehead presidents we get now do much to alter the big plans
  made at the Pentagon.
  




  Yes, you may be naïve, ignorant, but you are totally correct.
  The power of the Jewish/Israeli lobbies are simply unbelievable.
  Sadly, the Jews have a way of setting themselves up to be victims all over again,
  an act which they refuse to acknowledge: to some degree their own actions set
  the stage for the horrendous Holocaust, which the Palestinians – and the rest of the
  world – must now pay for.  As I’ve mentioned before: experiencing the Holocaust
  means never having to say you’re sorry.  (Of course in the Jewish mindset the
  anti-Nazi folks, gays, Gypsies, retarded and crippled people, etc., who were
  gassed/cremated don’t count.)  None of them gets a “get out of jail free” card. 
  It’s quite incredible the way Israel has us by the balls.  As Obama said today,
  “the status quo cannot last.”  As the Hebrew prophets learned a long time ago,
  life leans toward justice, as do the Hebrew prophets.   And the social/moral force
  of justice finally works every time – just like gravity.

*******************************
At least one of these people is not Jewish, so he must be wrong.  Which is it?

*************************************

You might enjoy reading a few pages of this http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0520245989/normanfinkelst00/
 

  Finkelstein's opening quote is

  "There are evil people in the world and we must stand up to them"

  -Alan Dershowitz-  


  Pretty ironic!

********************************************
And now from Democracy Now:

In a major speech on the U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and on the Arab Spring, President Obama said a Palestinian state must be based on the 1967 borders, the first time a U.S. president has explicitly taken this position. The Israeli government immediately rejected Obama’s comments, calling the 1967 borders "indefensible." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in the United States today and will meet Obama at the White House. We host a roundtable with author Norman Finkelstein, Palestinian human rights lawyer Noura Erakat, and Jeremy Ben-Ami, head of the lobby group J Street. [includes rush transcript]
Guests:
Norman Finkelstein, author of several books on the Israel-Palestine conflict, including This Time We Went Too Far: Truth & Consequences of the Gaza Invasion.
Noura Erakat, Palestinian human rights attorney, activist and adjunct professor of international human rights law in the Middle East at Georgetown University. She is also the legal advocacy coordinator for the Badil Center for Palestinian Refugee and Residency Rights and co-founder of Jadaliyya Ezine.
Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street, a nonprofit advocacy group based in the United States that lobbies for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Rush Transcript

This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, More...

Related Links

JUAN GONZALEZ: President Obama is set to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today at the White House one day after Obama became the first U.S. president to explicitly call for Israelis and Palestinians to seek a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. Obama made the remark during a major speech at the State Department on the recent uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Ultimately, it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them, not by the United States, not by anybody else. But endless delay won’t make the problem go away. What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows: a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples—Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people—each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition and peace. So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel.
The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves and reach their full potential in a sovereign and contiguous state.
As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself, by itself, against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.
AMY GOODMAN: President Obama’s decision to put the United States formally on record as supporting the 1967 borders drew cautious support from Saeb Erekat, the top aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
SAEB EREKAT: Mahmoud Abbas expresses his appreciation to the efforts being exerted, the continuous efforts being exerted, by President Obama with the objective of resuming the permanent status talks in the hope of reaching a final status agreement on all core issues, including Jerusalem and refugees.
AMY GOODMAN: But Obama’s comments drew sharp criticism from Israel.
YIGAL PALMOR: Prime Minister Netanyahu, in his visit in Washington, will hope to hear a reaffirmation of the commitments made by the U.S. to Israel in 2004 and which were overwhelmingly supported by both houses of Congress. These commitments refer to the absolute necessity to solve the Palestinian refugee problems within—exclusively within the borders of the future Palestinian state and the non-viability of the ’67 borders as such.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Israeli foreign ministry spokesperson Yigal Palmor.
In his speech, Obama also laid out a U.S. strategy toward the Middle East and North Africa. He unveiled new billion-dollar economic aid packages for Egypt and Tunisia and took a harder line against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Obama also voiced support for opposition leaders in Bahrain while reaffirming the U.S.'s commitment to Bahrain's security. The President denounced Iran’s nuclear program and accused it of sponsoring terror.
Obama did not once mention Saudi Arabia during his speech. The country is a major U.S. ally in the Middle East. It’s staved off the widespread popular protests that have swept across the region since January.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, to further discuss Obama’s speech, we’re joined by three guests.
Noura Erakat is a Palestinian human rights attorney and activist. She’s a professor of international human rights law in the Middle East at Georgetown University and the legal advocacy coordinator for the Badil Center for Palestinian Refugee and Residency Rights. She’s speaking at the "Move Over AIPAC" conference in Washington this weekend.
We’re also joined by Norman Finkelstein, author of several books on the Israel-Palestine conflict, including This Time We Went Too Far: Truth & Consequences of the Gaza Invasion.
AMY GOODMAN: And in Washington, D.C., we’re joined by Jeremy Ben-Ami, founder and president of J Street, a nonprofit advocacy group based in the United States that lobbies for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Jeremy, let’s begin with you. Your reaction to President Obama’s address?
JEREMY BEN-AMI: Good morning, Amy and Juan. It was a terrific speech by the President. And as you’ve pointed out, it broke new ground in putting the United States officially on record as recognizing that the resolution of this conflict, for the benefit of both the Israeli and the Palestinian people, is going to be two states based on the '67 lines with adjustments. It's something that 99 percent of the world understands and accepts and has recognized for quite some time, and it’s really unfortunate to see the Israeli government reacting in this way and unable to accept that this is the basis of their own long-term security interest, recognizing their own borders with their neighbors and finally getting international recognition of their right to self-defense.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Norman Finkelstein, I’d like to ask you about this question of new ground. As you’ve pointed out, President Bush, over three years ago, made a similar speech, and I want to quote from his. He said that "There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. [An] agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people." And Bush went on to say, "These negotiations must ensure that Israel has secure, recognized and defensible borders. And they must ensure that the state of Palestine is viable, contiguous, sovereign and independent." And, "It is vital that each side understands that satisfying the other’s fundamental objectives is key to a successful agreement." So, Bush said that you needed security for Israel and viability for the Palestinian state, that were in the mutual interest of both parties. How different is what Bush said three years ago from what Obama said yesterday?
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, if you were to juxtapose the two speeches, you would see not only is there no difference in content, but there’s actually no difference in form. It’s the same wording: mutually agreed land swaps based on the June 1967 borders. That’s basically been the position of the United States since, you could say, the last 20 or 25 years. There was no new ground in President Obama’s speech. And frankly, there’s no recipe there, there’s no formula there, for resolving the conflict.
The formula has to be exactly as the International Court of Justice said in July 2004 and as the U.N. General Assembly says every year with near-unanimous support. The Palestinians have the right to self-determination in the whole of the West Bank, the whole of Gaza, with East Jerusalem, the whole of East Jerusalem, as its capital. That’s the Palestinian right. That’s not subject to negotiations. Rights are enforced; they are not negotiated. The moment you say it has to be mutually agreed upon means Israel has a veto over Palestinian rights.
Secondly, Mr. Obama said that the withdrawal of Israeli troops has to be mutually agreed upon. That means Israel can say that, "OK, we’ll withdraw from the Jordan Valley," as they’ve said in the past. "We’ll withdraw in 20 years." And if the Palestinians say no, we’re at an impasse again. It’s not mutually agreed upon.
Thirdly, President Bush—excuse me, President Obama said that Jerusalem is a separate issue. He calls it an issue that remains. But that’s not the law. The International Court of Justice ruled that the whole of the West Bank, as they put it, comma, including Arab Jerusalem, is occupied Palestinian territory. If you say you want to return to the June '67 border, how can you exclude Jerusalem? Jerusalem wasn't part of Israel in June 1967. Jerusalem has the exact same status under international law as the West Bank and Gaza. In the words of the International Court, it is occupied Palestinian territory. To talk about a Palestinian state without East Jerusalem is to talk about an Indian reservation or a bantustan. There can’t be a state without Jerusalem as its capital.
AMY GOODMAN: Noura Erakat, did you have any hope—take, draw any hope from what President Obama said yesterday? Did you think there was anything new in it?
NOURA ERAKAT: I thought that his affirmation of self-determination for all peoples, the right to dignity, as they apply in Tunis, in Egypt, in Yemen, in Bahrain, was inspirational.
I think that what he said in regards to Palestine and Israel, unfortunately, was more of the same, and perhaps even worse. He had indicated that there are numerous Palestinians living to the west of the Jordan River. Well, those happen to be the Palestinians, the indigenous population, that have been living under occupation since ’67, including the refugees who were displaced in 1948.
Additionally, the things that were also of concern is that he described moving to the 1967 borders and qualified that immediately by referencing land swaps. But if we’re referencing land swaps, essentially what we’re discussing is the potential transfer of the Palestinian citizens of Israel into the West Bank. And that transfer is forbidden, or should—I mean, is prohibited by international law.
Finally, he did say, whereas Bush described Israel as a Jewish homeland, Obama went one step further to describe it as a Jewish state, which hasn’t been discussed by Bush before. And this is very troubling, because to describe it as a Jewish state, not a Jewish homeland, is detrimental to those 1.2 million Palestinian citizens of Israel who are Christian and Muslim, who therefore will be relegated to second-class citizenship, as a matter of fact, in institutionalization.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And the need that the President felt, Noura, to make this speech just before the meeting with Netanyahu, is that, in essence, reflecting the changed condition on the ground that’s going on now? Obviously, with the revolution in Egypt now, you’ve had Egypt brokering an agreement between Fatah and Hamas, and Egypt agreeing to open up Rafah now to end the isolation of Gaza.
NOURA ERAKAT: I think that what—by Obama making this speech when he made it, he is trying to be ahead of the curve, in order to demonstrate to the Palestinians that they need not move to diplomatic fora and multilateral institutions like the U.N. to achieve self-determination that the U.S. can deliver. Unfortunately, the U.S. has been unable to deliver for the past 18 years, definitely more, but at least during the tenure of Oslo. And this does very little to increase their credibility.
AMY GOODMAN: Jeremy Ben-Ami, this weekend AIPAC is having its major meeting in Washington, and there is major counter-meetings that are taking place. Explain what your organization, J Street, is.
JEREMY BEN-AMI: We are the voice of what I would consider to be the passionate moderates in the American Jewish community, because we are deep believers in the concept of a national home for the Jewish people, and we are also passionate believers in the concept of a national home for the Palestinian people. And we believe that each is dependent on the other. We can only have a state that is in fact the home of the Jewish people if there is one for the Palestinian people, as well. And contrary to Professor Finkelstein, we would support reasonable compromises that would allow some of the built-up settlement areas along the border of Israel to be retained within a state of Israel that is at peace with a Palestinian state, provided that equal land has been transferred from the state of Israel to the new Palestinian state. And again, for Noura Erakat, no one is talking about, at least in the pro-peace camp, is talking about swaps that would include actual citizens of Israel. It wouldn’t include people; it would be land. And there’s been land identified that is available. It’s been subject to negotiation for a decade now, that would be available for such a swap. So, I like to think that we represent the center of the debate between those who see Israel as always right and those who see Israel as always wrong. We recognize there’s two sides to the story, and there’s two peoples with two rights and two sets of wrongs, as well.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to come back to this discussion. We have to break. Our guests are Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street; Norman Finkelstein, author; Noura Erakat, human rights attorney and activist. This is Democracy Now! Back in a minute.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking about "what now?" President Obama just gave a major address yesterday. Today he meets with the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House. Our guests are Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street; Noura Erakat, Palestinian human rights attorney; and Norm Finkelstein, author who’s written a number of books on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Norm Finkelstein, on this issue of land swaps, is it feasible to have land swaps for the goal of a contiguous state?
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Of course it’s feasible to have land swaps. The question is whether the borders are subject to mutual agreement. Now, Jeremy says that he represents the moderate center versus the extremes, and I’m one of the extremes. But my position is the position of the International Court of Justice. The Court ruled in July 2004 that the whole of the West Bank, the whole of Gaza and the whole of East Jerusalem are occupied Palestinian territories, which are the designated unit for Palestinian self-determination. Just as Israel’s borders are not subject to mutual agreement, neither should the borders of the Palestinian state be subject to Israeli acquiescence.
If, when they sit down in negotiations, Israel presents a reasonable offer and it says, "We want to keep, say, 1.9 percent of the settlement—1.9 percent of the West Bank, and we’ll give you land of equal value and equal size in Israel," well, the Palestinians are free to say yes or no. But if the Palestinians choose to say no, because they don’t want the settlement of Ma’ale Adumim going all the way from Jerusalem to Jericho and bisecting their country, or they don’t want the settlement of Ariel going all the way across and bisecting the northern half of the West Bank, they have to be free to say no. Otherwise, there’s not going to be a settlement. And that’s exactly what’s not allowed for.
At least Jeremy said "equal size." He didn’t say "equal value." But let’s say "equal size." Obama was very careful not to say that. He just said "mutually agreed land swaps." That can be a ratio of five to one. It can be a ratio of seven to one. That’s not a basis for a settlement. That’s a basis for Israeli veto over the size and shape of a Palestinian state. And that’s unacceptable.
But I have to emphasize that’s not the extreme position. Every year, 165 countries in the United Nations reiterate what I say, or to put it more accurately, I’m reiterating what they say. Jeremy’s position is the position of the United States, Israel, Nauru, Palau, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Australia. Those are the dissenters. I’m very smack in the middle on this debate.
AMY GOODMAN: Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street?
JEREMY BEN-AMI: Well, actually, the position that I’m outlining is the position of the Quartet, which represents the U.N., the E.U., Russia and the United States, which is that the agreement needs to be one that is negotiated and accepted by both parties. The basis of conflict and war is when two sides stand on their high ground and say, "Well, we have rights to this, and you don’t," and then they fight it out. The only hope for an end to this conflict, and the reason for diplomacy, is to explore the art of the possible and how do we get both sides to relinquish what they both view as their right. And I think this is the only way that we’re going to avoid a Third Intifada, the only way that we’re going to avoid an explosion in the region, is if we will agree that there’s going to have to be a mutual agreement, because that’s how we will get both sides to recognize each other and put this conflict to rest forever.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, let me—
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Jeremy, are Israel’s borders subject to Palestinian agreement? Are Israel’s borders subject to Palestinian agreement? Or, was a precondition for negotiations that the Palestinians had to accept Israel in its pre-’67 borders? Which was it? Is it subject to negotiations?
JEREMY BEN-AMI: Well, at the moment, the unfortunate truth for the state of Israel and for those of us who support the state of Israel is that Israel doesn’t have internationally recognized borders. It’s one of the reasons why—
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: No, it certainly does. The World Court says it does. The International Court of Justice says it does. The United Nations General Assembly says it does.
JEREMY BEN-AMI: But the world doesn’t recognize those.
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: No, the world does.
JEREMY BEN-AMI: The world generally does not accept those borders. And if you try to draw—
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: That’s not true, Jeremy. Jeremy, that’s simply not true.
JEREMY BEN-AMI: You can shout. You can try to—
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, let me bring—let me bring Noura into the conversation. Specifically, I wanted to ask you about the—because President Obama was very clear that whatever happens at the United Nations this fall is going to have, from his perspective, no bearing on how things are negotiated between the Palestinians and Israel. Your sense of the upcoming United Nations vote on recognizing a Palestinian state?
NOURA ERAKAT: Sure. I just want to comment also on this discussion that’s happening about borders and not borders. What Israel has been doing is trying to create its own de facto borders, and therefore not recognizing that there is an armistice line. There is a green line, and that’s exactly what Norman is referring to, that the ICJ has referred to, as well.
What we are debating is whether or not the state will be viable as outlined by Obama. But I think that that is a false premise. It’s not about whether or not the states will be a viable state for Palestinians. Palestinians are looking and seeking and demanding—and are entitled to—self-determination, equality, freedom, dignity. And their call is the same as their Arab brethren in the region. That’s why the statehood strategy is also not going to be sufficient, because even if a state was declared, even if it was recognized by a two-thirds majority that’s able to overturn a Security Council veto to challenge it, that won’t suffice to offer sovereignty and dignity and liberty for Palestinians.
AMY GOODMAN: Noura, I want to get you to respond to President Obama speaking yesterday, where he rejected Palestinian efforts to have the United Nations recognize Palestine as an independent state.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: For the Palestinians’ efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.
AMY GOODMAN: President Obama yesterday. Noura Erakat?
NOURA ERAKAT: It’s quite unfortunate, again, the reference to Palestinians pursuing a path that’s not tenable. This is precisely the path that we should be on. That the U.S. has siphoned this discussion and isolated it, so that it created a tension between human rights, international law and politics, is precisely what has undermined the Palestinian platform to achieve any semblance of self-determination. And I think that by returning to this multilateral platform, where might doesn’t equal right, but there is a point of departure—and that point of departure is international law—is a positive step.
AMY GOODMAN: And the Move Over AIPAC meeting that’s taking place this weekend, explain it.
NOURA ERAKAT: Move Over AIPAC is really a precedent-setting meeting in that it’s going to challenge the Israel lobby, which was wonderfully articulated by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer in their book, in their manuscript. And what it will do is to bring constituents to Washington to be able to demonstrate their constituent support for a different policy on the Middle East, on Israel and Palestine, to their lawmakers, who, by the way, behind closed doors lament that there aren’t more voices that can support them in taking a more critical stance.
AMY GOODMAN: And Jeremy Ben-Ami, how does J Street relate to AIPAC?
JEREMY BEN-AMI: Well, there’s a lot that we have in common; there’s a lot that we disagree with them on. You know, we are supporters of the relationship, the special relationship between Israel and the United States. We do support Israel’s right to self-defense, and we support efforts by the United States to support Israel in that regard. However, at the same time, we don’t support an Israel right or wrong foreign policy for the United States.
There’s an American national interest in bringing about an end to this conflict, a reasonable two-state solution as articulated by the President. And I think while there are some who are worried about the reception for the President at AIPAC and whether or not he’ll find support in that organization, he should know that the majority of Jewish Americans, the majority of the organizations in the American Jewish community—Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee and others—do support his two-state vision, that he outlined yesterday, and came out with statements of support.
So we are differing with AIPAC on a number of its particulars. We’re supportive of the general mission of a strong and robust relationship between the United States and Israel. And, of course, we’re big proponents of a two-state solution and the right of the Palestinian people to freedom and self-determination, as Noura Erakat is saying, within a two-state solution.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And Norm, I’d like to ask you—Jeremy mentioned before the involvement of the Quartet, but there have been increasing fissures within that group, as well. Israel attempted to—or is withholding the tax revenues of the Palestinian Authority after the reconciliation with Hamas, and immediately the Europe Union has announced that it is increasing its aid to the Palestinian Authority, because they see this reconciliation as a positive move forward.
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: The Quartet is an ad hoc body consisting of the Russian Federation, the United States, the European Union and, I guess—and Tony—well, Tony Blair’s—I can’t recall right now the fourth. There are—
JEREMY BEN-AMI: The U.N.
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: The U.N. There are—no, not the United Nations.
JEREMY BEN-AMI: Yes, the United Nations.
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: The U.N., every year, has this resolution called "Peaceful Settlement of the Palestine Question." It’s every year in the United Nations, in November of each year. And every year they outline the principles for resolving the conflict. We don’t need Mr. Obama to conjure up new principles any more than we needed President Bush to conjure them up. We have the platform or the basic principles based on international law. And those principles have been ratified every year not only by the U.N. General Assembly; they’re ratify every year by all 22 members of the Arab League. They’re ratified—they were ratified by the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
And I regret to say that, contrary to what Jeremy is saying, those principles are explicit: recognition of Israel in its June '67 border. Incidentally, the Islamic Republic of Iran every year votes with the majority in the U.N. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. They ratified the two-state solution on the June ’67 border. There is no dispute about this. There is no denial of Israel's right to its June '67 border. The only question is the right of the Palestinians to their border of the whole of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. That's the only issue that’s open, because of Israel and the United States.
Now, one last point. Jeremy says he supports a reasonable foreign policy for Israel. Your next guest is going to be one of the people who was on the Goldstone mission. Now, J Street has said that politically it’s closest to Kadima, the Israeli coalition Kadima, which is headed by Tzipi Livni. Tzipi Livni said, during the Israeli assault on Gaza, that Israel—now I’m quoting her—"Israel went wild in Gaza, which is what I demanded." She also said, the day after Israel withdrew, she went on Channel 10 news, and she said that "I demanded real hooliganism in Gaza." "I demanded real hooliganism in Gaza." She went on to say, "I have no regrets about any of my decisions during the invasion of Gaza, and I’m proud of those decisions." Now, Jeremy says his organization—or his organization has said they are closest to Kadima, headed by Tzipi Livni. So I have to ask him, Jeremy, is "going wild" and "real hooliganism" your idea of a moderate foreign policy?
JEREMY BEN-AMI: You know, it’s fun to be on a program with you, Norman. We’ve never met, and I’ve heard a lot about you. But it’s interesting that, you know, the question that was asked was whether or not Israel had withheld tax revenue and the Europeans had increased their aid. And I thought I’d just answer the question rather than attack you.
The question, Juan, is correct. Initially, the Israeli government did withhold tax revenue. It has subsequently released that tax revenue. So that issue is now off the table. What the Europeans agreed to do was to advance aid that was otherwise already committed in order to make up the cash flow problems that were facing the Palestinian Authority.
And that’s the kind of, you know, reasonable answer that I think a question like yours demands. I don’t think there’s any need to engage in this kind of attack questions, Professor Finkelstein.
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: That’s not an attack question.
JEREMY BEN-AMI: Of course we don’t support—
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: It’s clarity about your position, Jeremy.
JEREMY BEN-AMI: Since we’re here to discuss—but I’m just curious. Since we’re here to discuss President Obama’s speech, we’re here to discuss the way forward, we’re here to discuss a way to avoid another war, how to achieve peace and security for both peoples, I don’t quite understand what the point of your question is.
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, I think you were asked to define what—you were asked to describe what J Street’s position was, how it compared with AIPAC. And so, I think as a point of clarity, what do you consider an Israeli reasonable foreign policy? Is it "going wild" and demonstrating "real hooliganism" in Gaza? Is that your idea of a reasonable Israeli foreign policy? Because that’s what Tzipi Livni said. I can’t change her words. That’s what she said.
JEREMY BEN-AMI: Last I checked, I’m not—last I checked, I’m not Tzipi Livni’s spokesperson, and I’m not American Friends of Kadima.
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: You said—
JEREMY BEN-AMI: I represent—I represent—let me finish a sentence. I represent the organization J Street, that is a lobby for pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans. We believe in Israel’s right to exist. We believe in the right of the Jewish people to a national homeland of their own. We believe in the right of the Palestinian people to a national homeland of their own. We define being pro-Israel as being, as well, pro-Palestinian. And we’re tired of this pro and anti dynamic. We’re tired of this either-or, right-or-wrong dynamic, because this is an issue that has shades of grey, which you seem incapable of absorbing or expressing. So, yes, Israel does have a right of self-defense when rockets are rained down on its citizens and school buses are blown up. It does have the right to strike back against those who perpetrate terror in the interests of pursuing their own interests.
NOURA ERAKAT: And it also has an obligation—
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Does a right—
JEREMY BEN-AMI: However, we believe that there have to be limits to those, and we don’t believe that any country has the right to "go wild" and inflict excessive damage on a civilian population. So there’s a middle ground here, as well.
AMY GOODMAN: Noura Erakat, we’re going to end with you.
NOURA ERAKAT: Israel has the right to defend itself, but it also has the obligation to respect the laws of war that limit the deliberate attack on civilians and their targeting. What happened in Gaza is unacceptable. And any solution requires Obama not to map out and reiterate these same principles over and over. What the U.S. needs to do is to apply pressure to end the settlement expansion, to dismantle them, to dismantle the wall pursuant to the ICJ decision, to hold Israel accountable for Operation Cast Lead, to remove Israel’s forces from the Jordan Valley. And then we can discuss these other matters on principle.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to talk about the Goldstone Report in just one minute. I want to thank Noura Erakat, Palestinian human rights attorney, for joining us. Norm Finkelstein, author, his book is coming out in the next week on the Goldstone Report. And I want to thank Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street.
This is Democracy Now! When we come back, a member of the Goldstone Commission speaks out on a national U.S. broadcast for the first time. Stay with us.

Creative Commons License The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Bin Laden's Porn and Zionist Porn

Well, some really dirty stuff on the internet today.  Do not click on the link below if you are squeamish about lascivious women!


here
Bin Laden porn xxx pornography found Home Movie dod dept defense white house obama releases private movies osama sex tape Compound

Boy, I'll tell ya.  That really is lewd, no?  Or maybe it is a secret message for terrorists -- every gesture has a meaning?
Kids, if you really want porn, go to Yahoo or Google or BING.  This is way too heavy for you.

************************************

On another front, no pun intended, George Mitchell finally said "Screw this" and gave up on peace talks. 

Here is an anniversary wish list:




End the Occupation
  Volume 9; Number 9                                                                   Occupation End Notes                                                     May 13, 2011
In this Issue:

Sustain our Work
A growing community is saying YES to freedom, justice and equality for all, by joining the Olive Branch Club, for an automatic recurring donation.
Join the Olive Branch Club

Take Action: 
Boycott Bibi

Don't let your representative entertain Israeli apartheid policies against Palestinians when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu comes to address a joint session of Congress this month.
Take Action

Facebook Cause logo
Click to join our Facebook Cause
.

Events: 

DC
MISSOURI
WASHINGTON
Register YOUR event on the US Campaign's online event calendar! 

Follow Us:
Newsletters Newsletters
Twitter Twitter
YouTube YouTube
RSS Blog
Facebook Facebook
 Vimeo


Available NOW from our shelves:

DVD by Anna Baltzer
DVD cover image 
A moving introduction to the plight of Palestinians, in simple, everyday terms, narratated by US Campaign National Organizer Anna Baltzer. $15.



Upcoming Delegations to Palestine-Israel:
Palestinian-led international delegation:
July 8 - 15, 2011

ICAHD-USA:
July 10 - 25, 2011

"Summer Rebuilding Experience" 


Joint Advocacy Initiative:
July 23 - 31, 2011

"Journey for Justice" youth program 


Interfaith Peace-Builders:
May 21 - June 3, 2011:
Voices of the Peace-Builders
July 16 - 29, 2011:
Today's Realities & Tomorrow's Leaders
July 16 - 29, 2011:
African Heritage Delegation
Oct. 29 - Nov. 11, 2011:
Olive Harvest
Global Exchange:
July 1-11, 2011:
Prospects for Peace with Justice
October 14-23, 2011:
Fair Olive Harvest
December 2-12, 2011:
Prospects for Peace with Justice

Christian Peacemaker Teams:
May 24 - June 6, 2011
July 19 - August 1, 2011
September 6-19 (German lang.)
November 15-28, 2011

Friends of Sabeel North America:
June 4-18, 2011:
Two-Week Fact-Finding Trip

Click for a more thorough delegation directory
Share

Occupation End Notes:
Global Rallies as Commemoration of Nakba Nears

 

Above: Poster announcing New York City's premiere Nakba commemoration event for 2011 (click image for details).



Dear Human,

Sunday marks 63 years of Palestinian dispossession since "Al-Nakba" or "the catastrophe." Right now, in a movement organized with active participation of youth, Palestinians are seizing the occasion to organize homeward marches.

These will draw Palestinians living in refugee camps, in the occupied territories, within Israel, and in exile, as well as thousands of Palestinian solidarity activists worldwide.

In the months before and after May 15, 1948, more than 700,000 Palestinians fled or were forced out by Zionist armed forces and the Israeli military, and became refugees throughout the world. Israel razed more than 400 Palestinian villages and barred the refugees from ever returning to their land -- even though this right is enshrined in international law and UN resolutions.

In the coming week, the marches and demonstrations will attest to the Palestinian determination to struggle for freedom from occupation, equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel, and justice through the refugees' right of return.

F
rom here in Washington, DC, to Atlanta to the Bay Area to Boston to Detroit to New York City to Seattleto St. Louis (to name a few), dozens of U.S. communities, including many of our member groups, will hold events of commemoration, solidarity, outreach and education to transform U.S. support for Israeli occupation and apartheid into support for human rights, international law and equality.

Below we offer you a sampling of the latest, most compelling initiatives toward that end, by our member groups and others. Be sure to send us your feedback here, see our recent issues here, and read on!

Yours,
signature
Joshua Hough
Communications Director




Revisit "Expressions of Nakba" web site for audiovisual feast

 

Above: Winner of our visual arts award, by Anne Paq.
The US Campaign was founded with the mission to change U.S. policy toward this conflict so that it upholds the application of international law and human rights. 

At the Nakba's 60th anniversary in 2008, we organized the first-ever international competition for the most creative artistic rendition of the Nakba and the right of return. Enjoy the extraordinary results at our web site...

Alice Walker: 
"This Is the Freedom Ride of this Era."

By US To Gaza (a US Campaign member group), May 10, 2011

 
Watch Video
Above: Watch video featuring Alice Walker.

50 years ago, on May 4, 1961, the first bus of the Freedom Rides left Washington, DC, headed to New Orleans, with people committed to challenging segregation. The Freedom Rides were one of the sparks that contributed to a movement to dismantle a degrading system that violated human rights.

In an interview with organizers from The U.S. Boat to Gaza, Alice Walker, one of our nation's foremost contemporary writers and the first African-American woman to receive the Pulitzer Prize, likened the planned Gaza "Freedom Flotilla II" to the Freedom Rides. In the U.S. the racist system of segregation was challenged; in South Africa the racist system of apartheid was challenged; in Palestine the racist system of occupation and apartheid, enforced by the Israeli government and supported by the U.S government, is being challenged and will come to an end.

Cornell students publish second annual journal, "Notes on Palestine/Israel"

By Cornell Students for Justice in Palestine (a US Campaign member group)

Download Journal: Notes on
                                    Palestine/IsraelThe occupation of Palestine will not end, but will only be managed differently, unless the regional system of military aid, client states, and despotism -- in a word, imperialism -- also ends.

The good thing about a task this large is that one may start nearly anywhere. To this end, we've assembled this second volume to contribute our voices, critiques, and experiences to the mix, in the hopes that you find them informative, engaging, provocative, and useful:

Max Ajl presents a view of the occupation from within Gaza, and Dan Sinykin relays his experience, on a Birthright trip, of the Israeli vision that blinds itself to Gaza. Howard Botwinick describes the burgeoning TIAA-CREF divestment campaign, and Beth Harris recounts her visit to the settler-targeted West Bank village of Iraq Burin. Kevin McGinnis traces the colonialist affiliations between the foundational myths of America and Israel, and Sayres Rudy concludes the collection with an extended meditation on the uses and abuses of the apartheid comparison.

Power of BDS affirmed by its critics

By Anna Baltzer, National Organizer, May 12, 2011

Are boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) proving effective as a form of pressure to isolate Israel and end its violations of Palestinian rights? We at the US Campaign think so, but you don't have to take our word for it.

Two recent articles in the Jewish Daily Forward and the Israeli daily newspaper Ha'aretz have affirmed the power of the growing BDS movement in placing a cost on Israel's occupation and apartheid policies. TheForward's piece, "Survey of Campus BDS Finds Few Serious Cases," sets out to diminish concern over the recent surge in campus BDS campaigns, but ends up making the case as well as anyone could for how and why ongoing BDS campaigns -- on-campus and off- -- are succeeding!

AHAVA promotional campaign on Twitter jammed with BDS messaging

By Maureen Clare Murphy on Electronic Intifada, May 11, 2011

The Stolen Beauty campaign focusing on a boycott of Ahava cosmetics, which are illegally manufactured in the occupied West Bank using Palestinian natural resources, has launched a culture jamming initiative currently underway on Twitter:
[Ahava is] calling on people to Tweet skincare questions with the hashtag #AHAVAreborn ... a chance to win $300 worth of Mineral Magical Skincare...
We are asking Ahava boycott supporters to use the hashtags #AHAVAreborn & #stolenbeauty...
So many people have responded to this call that I can't see any tweets that aren't about BDS and Israel's rights abuses when searching "#AHAVAreborn" on Twitter. AHAVA is having an increasingly hard time covering up its human rights blemishes. It is has been dropped from retail stores in Canada and the UK and taken to court in France. As The Electronic Intifada reported last June, "Bad publicity caused Sex & the City star Kristin Davis to be dropped as a spokesperson for Ahava and as a goodwill ambassador for the international organization Oxfam after activists called on her to end her paid promotional appearances for Ahava."

Ambassador Charles Freeman to speak at Move Over AIPAC

Move Over AIPAC logoBy CodePink (a US Campaign member group), May 6, 2011

We are pleased to announce that Ambassador Charles Freeman will be presenting his book America's Misadventures at the Move Over AIPAC Conference on Saturday, May 21, at 12:30 pm. Freeman has served as an American diplomat in China, Thailand and Africa, and as the United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia from 1989 to 1992.

Freeman was nominated in 2009 as chair of the National Intelligence Council because of his diverse background in defense, diplomacy and intelligence. News of his nomination infuriated the pro-Israel lobby and AIPAC launched a libel campaign against him. Ultimately, Freeman withdrew his nomination, publicly stating that, "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."

Take Action: Boycott Bibi!

Members of Congress often declare that the United States is Israel's "best friend." As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu prepares to address a joint meeting of Congress later this month, it is time for us to wake up members of Congress and tell them that the United States must end its support for Israeli apartheid against Palestinians.

Sign our petition to members of Congress demanding they boycott Bibi's address. Help us reach our goal of 10,000 signatures and we'll personally deliver your signature to House Speaker John Boehner, who invited Netanyahu to address Congress.



Students to Board: "We will push you until you divest."

Cooper Point Journal, May 12, 2011
"TESC Divest!" is a student group at The Evergreen State College, Olympia, WA


 
TESC Divest campus
                                            demonstration
Above: On-campus representation of a refugee camp by student group "TESC Divest!" Click to enlarge.

The Evergreen State College Board of Trustees' May 11 meeting was mobbed with students and community members full of opinions on the campus divestment movement.

Evergreen alum Anna-Marie Murano vehemently demanded that the Trustees obey the student election supporting divestment. "So far, the board of trustees has failed us. The president [of the college] has failed us," she said.




Gaza Blockade Quiz draws attention to Palestinian plight

By Anna Balzter, National Organizer, May 10, 2011
Madison Area Peace Coalition is a US Campaign member group

 
Blockade Quiz
Above: Madison Area Peace Coalition's Blockade Quiz

Cinnamon or cumin, chocolate or coffee, fishing line or toilet paper -– which of these household items are allowed into Gaza under the Israeli blockade? Shoppers at the Madison, Wisconsin farmers' market were challenged to test their knowledge by taking the "Gaza Blockade Quiz." Each participant was asked to identify banned items from a table of everyday products.

"This is a real eye-opener," said one college student. Many contestants stayed after taking the quiz to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Others gathered around to watch the game being played. This provided an opening to ask shoppers how they would get by without fabric or vegetable seeds or toys for their children. Many were shocked by the capricious nature of the Israeli blockade. Not one respondent thought the prohibited items could be legitimately classified as military contraband.


May is "Right to Health Care" Month

Lori Helene Rudolph, Professor of Counseling and Consultant for the Palestinian Union for Social Workers and Psychologists

We Divest logoDesperately ill men, women and children regularly suffer because they are needlessly delayed by Israeli-imposed curfews, blockades, and closures.

I know because, as a mental health consultant and teacher who has lived and worked in the Occupied Territories for years, I've seen the unnecessary delays and the suffering with my own eyes.

Jewish Voice for Peace is designating May as "Right to Health Care Month" as part of our "We Divest" campaign to get financial giant TIAA-CREF to divest from the Israeli occupation.

Throughout May, we will offer many ways for you to learn about the health care situation in Palestine and will share tools you can use to reach out to medical, mental and public health professionals in your life to let them know about the vital role they could play in this campaign.

Gaza and the Arab Spring: A Conversation with Nadia Hijab

Shalom Rav blog, May 6, 2011
By Nadia Hijab, US Campaign Advisory Board Member

Ta'anit Tzedek logoTa'anit Tzedek, Jewish Fast for Gaza, will sponsor "Gaza and the Arab Spring," a conference call with prominent Palestinian writer and human rights advocate Nadia Hijab onThursday, May 19 at 12:00 pm EST. 

The Arab Spring -- a series of popular uprisings all over the Arab world -- has brought new hope for greater freedom, justice and democracy to millions of people throughout the Arab world and beyond. The uprisings have already brought about dramatic changes in several countries and the popular movement is growing in strength. How will these changes affect the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and more particularly the people of Gaza?

Prof. Rashid Khalidi on Hamas-Fatah agreement

Prof. Khalidi on IPS TVRashid Khalidi is a member of the US Campaign's Advisory Board, and is the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University's Middle East Institute, and editor of theJournal of Palestine Studies.

On Palestine Studies TV, Will Youmans of the Institute for Palestine Studies spoke with Dr. Khalidi about the deal between Hamas and Fatah that is aimed at reconciliation after the state of division since 2007. This news set the theme for our previous edition ofOccupation End Notes.


L A S T   W O R D S

The Flavor of Palestine

Canaan FT olive oilWe've teamed up with our friends at Canaan Fair Trade to offer you Palestinian fair trade products delivered directly to your door. Buying CFT products is a great way to support Palestinian farmers and the US Campaign.

CFT olive oils make especially great gifts. Buy this Rumi Organic Extra Virgin Olive Oil in a case of six 1-liter tins for $170. The Rumi Tree, cultivated in Palestine since the Roman Era, produces a robust and pungent olive oil with a buttery finish. It's USDA-certified organic, cold-pressed, extra virgin. Every tin sold sends $1 to Palestine Trees for Life, and an additional $1 for Canaan Scholarships.

As the movement grows, so do we

member group globe
                                    illustrationRana Libdeh, Membership & Outreach Coordinator

Following are the latest newcomers to our 350-strong coalition. It's great to have you!
 Palestine Action Group, Corvallis, OR
 Episcopal Bishop's Committee for Israel/Palestine, Seattle
 Students for Justice in Palestine, Cornell
 Students for Justice in Palestine, DePaul University
 Students for Justice in Palestine, Florida International University
To aid our members' networking efforts and to better gauge the coalition's regional diversity, we've mapped our member organizations, state-by-state! Click here to view the full list of groups.

Has your group joined us yet?

Back to Top

Occupation End Notes is the US Campaign bi-weekly newsletter, designed as a tool for activists. For this newsletter to be successful, we need your participation. Use us to promote events, give feedback on recent actions, recommend resources, or just learn from other activists in the movement. If you or your organization is planning an event or you have information for the Newsletter, please contact the US Campaign by emailing us here.

The US Campaign aims to change U.S. policies that sustain Israel's 43-year occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, and that deny equal rights for all.


US CAMPAIGN TO END THE ISRAELI OCCUPATION | PO BOX 21539 | WASHINGTON, DC 20009
202-332-0994 | 
USCAMPAIGN@ENDTHEOCCUPATION.ORG |WWW.ENDTHEOCCUPATION.ORG