Berkeley's Israel boycott: The occupation's new friend

[Jefferson23]

By Bradley Burston

JERUSALEM - If I were a person who wanted to see the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land continue for as long as possible, I would be beside myself with relish at the thought of the current Boycott,Divestment,Sanctions (BDS) campaign at the school I love, the University of California, Berkeley.

A word of background. At the time when I was an undergraduate at Berkeley, to talk with Palestinian peace activists and to back a two-state solution was to risk arrest in Israel.

I strongly believed then that a Palestinian state should be established on the West Bank and Gaza land which Israel captured in the 1967 Six Day War, and that the capital of that independent nation should be in East Jerusalem.

I still do. And because when I left Berkeley, I went to Israel and have lived here ever since, I take heart in the polls which for years have shown that a majority of Israelis want to see an eventual two-state solution to their long conflict with their Palestinian neighbors.

This is something else I have learned about living in this place: You get to know acts of political narcissism when they see them. You get to know when people, in the guise of putting themselves on the line, are merely putting themselves in the spotlight. And you get to know double standards like nobody else.

That is why, when right-wing organizations like CAMERA and NGO Monitor pretend to fight bias by attacking only bias against Israel, their efforts are a dismal, baldly disingenuous failure - except, that is, in soliciting donations and publicity.

remainder in full: http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1161713.html

[LeftishBrit]

1. Agreed

'And that is why hardliners can only adore the current campaign to pass a Berkeley student senate resolution entitled "A bill in support of UC DIVESTMENT FROM WAR CRIMES."

The Associated Students of the University of California senate bill, which could come up for a decisive vote as early as April 14, plays directly into the hands of those who want to see the occupation go on and on.'

Yes. Not because it's really going to do much one way or another, but because it is an easy way of feeling one's doing something when one isn't.

'That is why, when right-wing organizations like CAMERA and NGO Monitor pretend to fight bias by attacking only bias against Israel, their efforts are a dismal, baldly disingenuous failure - except, that is, in soliciting donations and publicity.'


Yessss!!! That is just as much a form of narrow focus and double standards as only criticizing Israel: a point I've been trying to make for a while.

[Jefferson23]

2. I support BDS efforts, what I think he points out here is, do it smart

if you're going to do it at all. I don't necessarily question their sincerity, and I differ with you that their activity is
of an easy nature. There should be in place an objective independent review, someone out side their group who
they can use as a checks and balance approach to the content of their message. If they want the greatest impact
for their efforts, that should be important to them.

[LeftishBrit]

3. While I am not in favour of BDS (certainly not the 'B' part) , I agree that if done properly, it

would be far from an easy option.

However, the way that it's usually attempted, it tends to take the form, 'Let's have a vote to do this - and if a majority of our small group of activists votes for the motion, then voila, mission accomplished!' This is relatively easy to achieve and doesn't accomplish much, good or bad, except in making people think they're doing something, and thus may distract them from real efforts.

I don't think it's usually insincere, at least with students; I just think it's naive.

This is not confined to I/P issues. A variant, for example, is the assumption that *all* you have to do to prevent something is to pass a law against it, even if you have no way of enforcing the law.

[Jefferson23]

4. Yes, about the naivete, I agree with that. Would be interesting to learn

their reaction to his opinion on the subject.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. C.f. Drugs, War on, 1969-present, Nixon et al?

N.T.

[LeftishBrit]

22. Indeed !

[Lithos]

13. Just, my Honest Opinion

It is easy to be negative, harder to be positive.

Would be better if they found positive funds to invest in rather than abstain from the whole process then hurt everyone.

L-

[ProgressiveMuslim]

14. Do you think that would have worked in South Africa?

[Lithos]

15. Yes...

The apartheid system was originally predicated upon separate development. Such an artificial system is actually at odds with any real system based on capitalism. To that end, the Afrikaaner-controlled economy of SA was largely nationalized and/or heavily regulated. In the end, it was the inability of the Afrikaaners to prop up or control their white-based economy separate from that of the Black majority that proved the downfall. I do believe that controlled investments in companies which practiced fair labor policies or which promoted development in Black townships would have accelerated this decline.

The difference between S.A. apartheid and the division between Israel and Palestine is that Israel is not dependent on Palestine, but Palestine is to Israel. Any significant pain that Israel feels will likely be amplified against Palestine. A headache in Tel Aviv will be a debilitating migraine in Nablus. That said, there are plenty of companies which are investing inside of the OT and which, if pressured correctly, could prove an economic boon to the Palestinians and in turn allow them greater ability to control their own destiny free of Israel.

L-

[ProgressiveMuslim]

16. Is Gaza part of the Palestine of which you write?

[Lithos]

19. Possibly

Though given Hamas' tendency to appropriate resources from other agencies and groups, it may not be considered a good or viable investment.

L-

[ProgressiveMuslim]

23. Have you bought into the "let's pretend Gaza doesn't exist and make 'economic peace'

in the WB?

[Lithos]

24. pardon?

...

[ProgressiveMuslim]

25. Do you think it's feasible to pursue "economic peace" in the WB and ignore the situation in

Gaza?

It seems that some want to forge ahead in the WB with Abbas and Fayyas, and maintain the status quo in Gaza.

Do you think this approach is valid?

[Lithos]

28. I think that is a bad strawman...

I think that it lumps those who would invest in the WB over Gaza as being politically motivated instead of financially motivated. Remember we are talking about institutional investors here, not aid agencies.

To that end, while there are certainly hotspots, as a rule the WB is currently a much more hospitable and peaceful place than Gaza meaning there is less risk for institutional investors. The same rewards are in WB as in Gaza, but the risks are much higher in Gaza. And because I see any investment as a peace dividend, I would not setup some artificial barrier which stops any investment in Palestinian territories just because it ultimately benefits on part over another.

At this time, the only group who I think would find success in Gaza would be something along the lines of Bangladesh's Grameen Bank or Foundations which cater to small businesses. Generally these are not traded and thus not available for any investment portfolio.

L-

[ProgressiveMuslim]

29. Strawman? There are those in Israel who advance the concept of "economic peace" with the WB.

Anyone who would like a view on the topic could check out this link.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11065.shtml

[Lithos]

30. And this article has what to do with the topic of hand?

I mean I got that the author doesn't like the PA and seems to favor Hamas, but beyond that, what truthfully does it have to do with private investment funds and where they invest? Sounds like a ton of sour grapes here as Western government monies are being given to the PA and not to Hamas. There is no difference in what the PA is doing than any city in the US today.





L-

[ProgressiveMuslim]

31. Except that the PA's term has legally expired, they have no legitmacy, and they run a police state.

I'd say that's quite a bit different than how cities in the US operate, wouldn't you?

You described an economic situation of positive investment that utterly ignored Gaza. It sounded me to me like the language used by those who advance the notion of an "economic peace." I asked if you support that? You accused me of creating a strawman. I am pointing out that is no strawman.

[Lithos]

33. Then blame Hamas

They are the ones who created the third wheel when they illegally seized control of Gaza and chose to operate outside the realm of both Palestinian Law and International Laws. The strawman you have posited is that Gaza must be considered at the same time as the West Bank. Truthfully, no it does not need to be considered at the same time because it is virtually impossible to try and bring all of the players to an initial agreement - especially one who has stated that the best they would ever consider is a Hudna and not a real peace. History is on the side of the current process. The article aludes to the action, but not the reasoning.

One of the most recent examples of ending a multi-generational, multi-party conflict is that of ending of apartheid in S. Africa. When DeKlerk started negotiations to end apartheid, he choose one party and individual to negotiate with - the ANC led by Mandela. The ANC at that time was one of many groups - many tribal based - and really did not enjoy any significant legitimacy over the others, and like most Palestinian groups today was in almost perpetual conflict with other Black Nationalist groups. However, by choosing one group, they were able to overcome significant issues and reach terms that would have been impossible had there been multiple voices to please.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

34. Blame Hamas? You must be kidding me.

I am no Hamas supporter by a long stretch. They have mistreated my own family members in Gaza.

But they won that election fair and square and extended a hand. The PA/Israel/US responded by planning a coup led by Mohammad Dahlan.

Impossible to bring 1.5 million human beings into the agreement? Wow. You have an interesting political philosophy.

[Lithos]

35. Who is kidding whom?

>>But they won that election fair and square and extended a hand. The PA/Israel/US responded by planning a coup led by Mohammad Dahlan.

Hamas of course is innocent - I am sure Samira Tayeh would agree with me. From what I have read, the civil war was pretty much foretold from the election - just that no one was wanting to be the group that tried first.

>>Impossible to bring 1.5 million human beings into the agreement? Wow. You have an interesting political philosophy.

Two words - Fatah and Hamas who represent two sides of the same violent coin. I will leave off the many smaller groups who also take the occasional pot shot at each other.

As a side note, I detect your dislike of Fayyad, does this also extend to Ashwari? What about El Sarraj? Bhargouti? I hear a lot of criticism of Fatah, but I also hear much of the same language you use against Fatah also directed towards those who might be open to discussions with Israel, or who are at least pursuing different channels other than violence. Who do you support?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

36. I personally support Barghouti -- Mustapha Barghouti.

But for the people of Palestine, I support democracy. As a partisan, my interest isn't a quick fix at this point or a forced solution.

My disgust for Fatah stems back to the mid-90's when we (literally) watched Arafat dole out the concrete importing contracts to the highest bidder, who then created a monopoly and put his competition out of business. It was sickening and heartbreaking to realize that Arafat was not going to continue the work of building and creating democratic institutions that had begun in the intifadah under some of the local leaders you mention above.

Even more sickening was the silence with which this corruption and lack of vision was greeted. Why didn't Ashrawi use her public platform to speak out against this? Where was El Sarraj when the first journalist was jailed by Arafat in 1995? It was hard to realize that people whom I had so admired in the early 90's were scared, and flawed and exhausted (or perhaps benefitting from the crony system).

As for the coup/civil war... believe me, I am no fan of Hamas. I am not a conservative Muslim by any stretch. My husband's entire family has always been Fatah. But I also get that people in Gaza are indeed intensely religious people by and large. From my POV, when Hamas entered the electoral fray, this was the opportunity to moderate them. When they won that astounding victory, there was the opportunity to work together to create a multi-party system, and work together to govern. Hamas extended their hand to Fatah. Fatah spit in their faces. That should have been the time to tell Israel and the US that it was time to put Palestine first, and to focus on building a political process that was based on rule of law, not on what was expedient for the US, Israel and Fatah purse-holders. What a tragic lost opportunity. Who knows what could have been?

I am curious though. I know that Zionist partisans here such as Pelsar, and ideologues such as Shira deny there was a US/Israel backed coup as described in the Vanity Fair piece, but do you?

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804

[Lithos]

37. ...

You do realize that Fayyad and Ashrawi founded their party with the primary focus of addressing reform of the security forces to stop the abuses? Ashrawi and Saleh both made very public resignations at a time which was very embarrassing to Arafat politically over this point?

I think given the depth of planning and execution, Hamas had been planning to take over for a substantial period of time prior to the initiation of hostilities. The timing may have been accelerated by events, but I do believe the contingency was there. That said, I do think that the US was egging Fatah on when Fatah knew they were in no position to do much of anything given the recent Israeli military operations.

Believe it or not, given the complete lack of understanding and poor planning, I am more inclined to place the Israelis as bystanders here. Yes, they knew what Bush was doing and would have liked to have seen it, but this has all the hallmarks of a Bush failure all over it.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

38. Too little... too late.

I now regard Oslo as an utter failure. I don't support what Fayyad is doing.

We had a WB friend come visit us recently. He was is a "vice" minister of a department that isn't critical. He was here for long visit for some sort of conference (big waste of money, IMO). He also started a side business which has made him rich. He's a nice guy and I wish his family well, but part of my brain is thinking... "you're at my dining room table having roast beef while our inlaws are locked up like animals in a pen?"

My view might be simplistic and naive, but this isn't the way. Making a few smart investors rich isn't the way forward. It won't lead to national liberation, and for me, that's the goal.

My own concern and interest right now isn't peace talks; it isn't Israel, it's rebuilding national unity among the people of Palestine, and a recommitment to the attainment of national liberation. I think this is diametrically opposed to US/Israeli goals and I think Fatah plays right along into that. That's why I am so outspokenly anti-Fatah at this time.

[Jefferson23]

17. Haven't the Palestinians themselves called for BDS and are aware

of the implications? The BDS should be directed at anti-settlements, vs anti-Israel. But for the most part
it is the public attention through these actions that could bring MSM media exposure, which has ignored
the Palestinians.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

6. Couldn't disagree more. I love Naomi Klein's response to BDS nay-sayers:

Dear members of the ASUC Senate,

I am writing to urge you to reaffirm Senate Bill 118A, despite the recent presidential veto.

It comes as no surprise that you are under intense pressure to reverse your historic and democratic decision to divest from two companies that profit from Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory. When a school with a deserved reputation for academic excellence and moral leadership takes such a bold position, it threatens to inspire others to take their own stands.

Indeed, Berkeley--the campus and the wider community--has provided this kind of leadership on many key issues in the past: not only Apartheid in South Africa but also sweatshops in Indonesia, dictatorship in Burma, political killings in Nigeria, and the list goes on. Time and again, when the call for international solidarity has come from people denied a political voice, Berkeley has been among the first to answer. And in virtually every case, what began as a small action in a progressive community quickly spread across the country and around the world.

Your recent divestment bill opposing Israeli war crimes stands to have this same kind of global impact, helping to build a grassroots, non-violent movement to end Israel's violations of international law. And this is precisely what your opponents--by spreading deliberate lies about your actions--are desperately trying to prevent. They are even going so far as to claim that, in the future, there should be no divestment campaigns that target a specific country, a move that would rob activists of one of the most effective tools in the non-violent arsenal. Please don't give into this pressure; too much is on the line.

As the world has just witnessed with the Netanyahu government's refusal to stop its illegal settlement expansion, political pressure is simply not enough to wrench Israel off its current disastrous path. And when our governments fail to apply sanctions for defiant illegality, other forms of pressure must come into play, including targeting those corporations that are profiting directly from human rights abuses.

Whenever we take a political action, we open ourselves up to accusations of hypocrisy and double standards, since the truth is that we can never do enough in the face of pervasive global injustice. Yet to argue that taking a clear stand against Israeli war crimes is somehow to "discriminate unfairly" against Israelis and Jews (as the veto seems to claim) is to grossly pervert the language of human rights. Far from "singling out Israel," with Senate Bill 118A, you are acting within Berkeley's commendable and inspiring tradition.

I understand that there is some debate about whether or not your divestment bill was adopted "in haste." Not having been there, I cannot comment on your process, though I am deeply impressed by the careful research that went into the decision. I also know that in 2005 an extraordinarily broad range of Palestinian civil society groups called on activists around the world to adopt precisely these kinds of peaceful pressure tactics. In the years since that call, we have all watched as Israeli abuses have escalated dramatically: the attack on Lebanon in the summer of 2006, a massive expansion of illegal settlements and walls, an ongoing siege on Gaza that violates all prohibitions on collective punishment, and, worst of all, the 2008/9 attack on Gaza that left approximately 1,400 dead.

I would humbly suggest that when it comes to acting to end Israeli war crimes, the international response has not suffered from too much haste but from far too little. This is a moment of great urgency, and the world is watching.

Be brave.

Yours sincerely,

Naomi Klein

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/31-9
------------------------------------------

For the record, I am so fucking sick and tired of people who are in effect, working to sustain the status quo, by saying "they don't criticize Hamas" or "what about the US in Baghdad."

Those of you who claim to want peace, but want to cut the arms and legs off those who work for it, get real!

What are groups in the bay area really doing to push a two-state solution? For crying out LOUD!-- the PRESIDENT OF THE US CAN'T EVEN FORCE IT. Do you folks really think some peace non-profits in the US are going to?

TALK ABOUT NAIVE!

If you say you want peace, be willing to apply real pressure.

[Jefferson23]

8. He is making a case for credibility, without it, the effort has less impact.

And if as a group you select only from the Goldstone report and not the entire conclusion, you risk
compromising the content of your message. The Goldstone report is dismissed by hardliners, but it is
in fact a tremendous document for good, there is no reason to highlight only part of it.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

9. Can you explain more fully what you mean? It's not credible to equally blame the oppressors

and victims?

[Jefferson23]

11. Not at all, the emphasis primarily is on Israel in the motion,

and does not include the analysis by Goldtsone regarding Hamas etc.

The Goldstone report is the strongest documented report they could possibly have to make
their case for BDS, use it in it's entirety. They should remember, the Obama administration
said the report was flawed, to date they have not said in what way. The Congress saw
fit to dismiss it, they didn't even have the balls to invite the man and have him answer
questions about the alleged flaws. They hate that report because it doesn't have any flaws
despite what the Dershowitz crowd has to say.

It seems to me, that report's strength is in it's totality...use it, don't compromise it.

I don't agree with those who dismiss BDS, to me, if you can get any attention
to the conflict, you're ahead.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. He makes a strong case, but I'm not 100% sure I agree with him.

I think Burston makes two excellent points: firstly that this bill will - rightly or wrongly - increase the Israeli perception that anti-occupation equals anti-Israel, and secondly that it won't put any meaningful material pressure on Israel.

What it will do, once it's filtered through the Chinese whispers of different nwes organs and commentators, is send a broad message: "in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Berkeley university is on the side of the Palestinians, against Israel".

Where I'm not sure I agree with Burston is in his advocacy of reconcilliation rather than confrontation as the route to peace. Broadly speaking, as far as I can see those looking for a solution to the I/P conflict and an end to the occupation fall into three camps. One of those is those who feel that the problem is Palestinian rejectionism rather than the Israeli failure to offer to end the occupation; I think that this position can safely be dismissed out of hand by a brief examination of the facts. That leaves two positions worth taking seriously.

On the one hand, there are those looking for peace to come from inside Israel, who support reconcilliation, bridge building, and attempts to convince the Israeli electorate that they ought, either for reasons of ethics or self interest, to end the occupation. This, I think, is the position Burston advocates in this article.

On the other hand, there are those looking for an imposed peace - those who have written off the Israeli electorate and who think that the only possible end to the occupation will be if international - specifically, US - pressure is placed on Israel to end the occupation. One can find advocation of this position by e.g. Larry Derfner at http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=172597



Sending this kind of "we are against you" message undoubtedly harms the first approach to peace. Its effect on the second is less clear-cut, though. I'm not sure whether the good this bill does by communicating international disapproval to Israel will or won't outweigh the harm it does by hardening the hardliners lines.


I'm firmly in the second camp - I think that the results of the last Israeli election make it clear that building bridges is not going to achieve anything; the Israeli electorate is perfectly comfortable with the status quo (except where it concerns the extent of the settlements) and the only way to achieve peace will be to make it less comfortable for them. So I'm considerably more ambiguous about this bill than Burston is - I don't know if the extent to which this bill increases pressure on Israel will outweigh the extent to which it increases Israeli resistance to pressure. I think Burston makes a moderately compelling case that it won't, though: I think that there is one, and only one, source of pressure that might actually have enough effect on Israel, and that's the US government.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

10. Or how about the camp that says: Let's make continuing the unconscionable status quo

so painful (through BDS) it will help the people of Israel realize it's in their interests to end the occupation and siege?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. That's roughly the second option I outlined.

For what it's worth, though, I think that sanctions would achieve a lot, boycotts possibly a bit and divestment virtually nothing.

[pelsar]

18. which facts....please list...

One of those is those who feel that the problem is Palestinian rejectionism rather than the Israeli failure to offer to end the occupation; I think that this position can safely be dismissed out of hand by a brief examination of the facts.




yes....amongst the facts your going to list; dont forget hamas, who controls gaza and is going for the westbank.... abbas as a weak corrupt leader, 6000 kassams, thousands of katushas from lebanon....

those facts are:

[azurnoir]

20. How many bombs from Israel? oh wait we're not supposed to say that

or remember huh? how many have died from UXB's in Lebanon? Israel has JUST recently provided maps as to where those bombs might be located but I seem to remember "someone" claiming years ago that those maps had already been provided was it ignorance or conscious dishonesty?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. The fact that Israel has yet to make a viable offer.

If Israel were ever to make an offer to withdraw without demanding to keep large swathes of the heart of the West Bank and/or all of Jerusalem, and the Palestinians were to reject it, then it would be reasonable to blame the Palestinians (although I don't think they would reject such an offer).

Until then, the onus is squarely on Israel to make such an offer.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. The fact that Israel has yet to make a viable offer.

If Israel were ever to make an offer to withdraw without demanding to keep large swathes of the heart of the West Bank and/or all of Jerusalem, and the Palestinians were to reject it, then it would be reasonable to blame the Palestinians (although I don't think they would reject such an offer).

Until then, the onus is squarely on Israel to make such an offer.

[azurnoir]

21. Burston may have a point here however

one must remember that we are dealing with a group that uses "martyrdom" in the figurative sense as it bread and butter criticism of Israel is almost always painted as being an affront to every Jew every where "funny" how Israeli Arabs simply do not count for these purposes yet will be "spit up" as proof of Israel's equality and now we have AIPAC claiming they will take over Berkley's campus so what to do sit by and hope for the best?

As Hillel the Elder said "if not now when?"

[ProgressiveMuslim]

32. "Why are American Jewish groups so intent on defending illegal Israeli settlements and other human

rights violations?

By Sydney Levy and Yaman Salahi

A coalition of nearly 20 Jewish groups, ranging from the right-wing David Project and the Jewish National Fund to the liberal J Street, is distributing a misleading statement condemning a Student Senate bill at UC Berkeley. The ground-breaking bill calls for divestment from companies that profit from the perpetuation of the Israeli military occupation in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza. They refer to the bill as "dishonest" and "misleading" and "based on contested allegations."

Yet it is their letter that is both dishonest and misleading.

The bill, available here (http://blogs.asuc.org/2010/03/18/announcements/sb-118-amended-passed), is based on extensive, footnoted research.

Yet this coalition of Jewish groups does not contest any of the facts. Without offering any evidence, they dismiss findings by reputable organizations like the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International. Instead of condemning these human rights violations, they prefer to misinform the public by suggesting that it is somehow wrong to “take sides” against universally recognized injustice. In so doing, they effectively defend illegal Israeli settlements and the Israeli military occupation that continues to disrupt everyday features of Palestinian life: education, health care, economic life, and art and culture.

Further, they claim that the Berkeley bill calls on the University "to divest exclusively from Israel." They imply that the bill calls for divestment "from any company doing business with Israel."

But this is simply not true.

The Berkeley bill focuses specifically on the Israeli occupation, not on Israel. While a vibrant and necessary debate on the merits of a total boycott and divestment from Israel continues around the world, it is not at issue here.

In reality, the bill divests only from two American companies that make money by equipping the occupation, General Electric and United Technologies – but no Israeli companies. It also announces an intention to divest from any company – whatever the nationality, and only after further research – that similarly profit from the occupation....

read on...
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_1281.shtml

[ProgressiveMuslim]

39. NEXT UP: GEORGETOWN UNVERSITY! woo hooo!

http://events.georgetown.edu/events/?Action=View&CalendarID=338&EventID=75970

[oberliner]

40. Georgetown University cannot divest from the several companies the coalition is highlighting

because the University is not directly invested in them.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

41. Matters not. Georgetown students are talking BDS! THE LIST GROWS! Coming to a university near you!

Woo hoo!

[oberliner]

42. They ISM held a divestment conference at Georgetown four years ago

I think that was the last national conference they've held.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

43. It is a joy to watch college students "get it" and demand justice.

I wonder what it feels like to feel sad when human beings demand justice? It's a kind of moral backwardness that I can't quite wrap my mind around.

[oberliner]

44. I hear ya

I agree with your observation - it is a joy to watch college students get it and demand justice.

It's always good to see college students passionate about issues that are important to them take action to try to effect change.

I don't know anyone who would feel sad when human beings demand justice. That seems completely bizarre to me.

Here's the Twitter feed for one of the students who is leading the campaign:

http://twitter.com/jacksonrperry

[ProgressiveMuslim]

45. When my daughter and her co-classmates demanded justice at her university, they had

food thrown on them.

There are plenty who want to deny justice in Palestine.

[oberliner]

46. Maybe people have different ideas about justice?

Have ISM activists or others seeking what they believe to be justice for Palestinians ever thrown food on anyone or engaged in similar behavior?

Perhaps the people who threw the food at your daughter and her friends thought they were doing so in the name of justice as well.

Standing up for something you believe in is not especially courageous if it does not involve some kind of risk or sacrifice.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

47. I suppose the food throwers believed the slaughtered Gazans got their justice and

slimed those who disagreed.

[oberliner]

48. Even not knowing the full context of the incident you're describing - I doubt it

“You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view, until you climb inside his skin and walk around in it."

Maybe give that advice a shot?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

49. Zionists advising compassion. Sweet.

[oberliner]

50. Compassion would go a long way - for Zionists and anti-Zionists

Everyone could stand to take a moment to see things from the other perspective (and then continue to fight passionately for what we believe in).

We are all human beings - the trap of nationalism and tribalism sometimes makes us forget that.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

51. Wow. That's deep.

I'll tell my husband to prepare his holocaust apology.

Not.

[oberliner]

54. I don't understand what you are getting at

No one is asking for any "holocaust apology" from anyone.

I appreciate your sarcasm and realize that my observations were not particularly "deep" - I just am trying to get folks to think about humanizing the "other" a bit more.

A lot of Israelis (and American supporters of Israel) would be wise to do that as well.

Can we not agree on even this?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

52. Israeli activists to J Street: ’stop trying to gain political capital at the expense of dedicated

peace activists'


by Adam Horowitz on April 12, 2010 · 27 comments

The following form letter has been circulating on an Israeli activist listserv criticizing J Street's leadership for their stance on the Berkeley divestment bill:

Letter from Israel to Jstreet: Please Do Not Call Me "anti-Israeli" !

Dear J Street folks

I am an Israeli citizen, I support the proposed Berkeley divestment bill, and I find your statement on this matter completely unacceptable.

Calling the bill "anti-Israeli" amounts to no more than shallow fear-mongering, and it is also an insult to me, an Israeli citizen who supports morally justified sanctions against companies that sell or operate military equipment facilitating the occupation.

Please stop trying to gain political capital at the expense of dedicated peace activists, Jews and non-Jews. If you truly disagree with the proposed bill, please engage in a serious debate.

Sincerely

Name:_____
City:______


I contacted the organizers of the letter to get the story of why they felt it was necessary. I heard back from Ofer Neiman who lives in Jerusalem and is coeditor of Occupation Magazine, an Israeli website about the occupation run by volunteer activists....

read on:
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/04/israeli-activists-to-j-street-stop-trying-to-gain-political-capital-at-the-expense-of-dedicated-peace-activists.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+feedburner%2FWDBc+(Mondoweiss)

[Jefferson23]

53. It was disappointing at the time, J Streets position, or lack there of, on

the Goldtsone report. But I have to say I never thought about the groups expansion having a negative
impact on previously organized groups, as stated in his eloquent letter.