More on U.S. Green Party Boycott/Divestments
Three weblog entries on the same thing – “The Green Party of the United States has endorsed a statement calling for a comprehensive strategy of boycott and divestment that would pressure the government of Israel to guarantee human rights for Palestinians.” – see the links to the other two, below, at the end of this message.
The resolution was introduced by the Wisconsin Green Party and passed in the Green Party’s National Committee. It “seeks reversal of Israel’s current policies.”
When I saw on the Green Party’s press statement “Mohammed K. Abed, Wisconsin Green Party” as one of the contacts, an alarm went off. Abed is a key figure, if not the key figure, in such groups as the University of Wisconsin Divest From Israel Campaign.
An article in the Sept-Oct 2005 issue of the War Resisters’ League publication, Nonviolent Activist, “Building Palestinian Solidarity: Demanding Divestment”, by Ora Wise and Mohammed Abed, states that “Mohammed Abed is a Palestinian refugee and a doctoral student at the University of Wisconsin, where he works with the student divestment campaign.”
An earlier article, “Divestment, Boycott, and the Idea of Peace in Palestine,” by Wendy Ake and Mohammed Abed, appeared in Left Turn (Notes from the Global Intifada), on 16 June 2005. (Mona Baker, the UK person who has been involved in anti-Israel actions such as boycotting Israeli translators, academics and others, kindly posted it on her website.)
Below you can see how this is being played on the weblog circuit. It is also a JTA breaking news item.
LGF — Green Party Declares War on Israel: Jew-hatred is the new environmentalism: Divest from Israel. (Right-click on link, copy link location, & paste into address bar. LGF rejects links from Jewschool.)
Miftah — U.S. Green Party Backs Boycott and Divestment of Israel
Arieh wrote: “An article in the Sept-Oct 2005 issue of the War Resisters’ League publication, Nonviolent Activist, “Building Palestinian Solidarity: Demanding Divestment”, by Ora Wise and Mohammed Abed, states that…”
If (Rabbi’s daughter and Hebrew school teacher at Kol Chayeinu Synagogue in Brooklyn) Ora Wise thinks he’s OK then he’s probably OK. That’s my 2 cents.
p.s. Charles Johnson’s childish filter at LGF diverts any links from JewSchool to his site to the IDF homepage. Which is all for the better as far as I’m concerned because LGF is full of hate-mongers anyway.
Arieh, I’m not sure if there’s a point you’re trying to make.
I’m gonna stand with John Brown on this one. Ora is a dear friend. Her more than okness goes beyond her rabbi’s daughterness or the hebrew school stuff.
“The Green Party is already on record as supporting the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and to receive compensation for their losses; immediate Israeli withdrawal from all lands acquired since 1967, including the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem (see news.independent.co.uk. ..); maintenance of Jerusalem as a shared city open to people of all faiths; suspension of U.S. military and foreign aid to Israel; complete dismantling of the Israeli separation wall; and serious consideration of a single secular, democratic state as the national home of both Israelis and Palestinians. Greens have affirmed the right of self-determination for both Palestinians and Israelis.”
This is slanted bullshit. “A single secular democratic state” is inconsistent with the affirmation of “the right of self-determination for both Palestinians and Israelis,” and it is obvious that the Green Party rejects Jewish national rights.
Zionista – If someone is for a singlular democratic state, then someone will inevitably shriek “You’re for the destruction of Israel!” as if the knife doesn’t cut both ways. Aren’t they also for the destruction of Palestine? Hamas would be just as pissed as Zionists. A single democratic state would be the destruction of the two state solution – the merger of both states. Either nothing is destroyed and some new entity is created – or both states are destroyed – depending on whether you’re a glass half full (integrationist) or half empty type (separatist) of person.
John,
What is the problem with two states for two peoples? How is it a genuinely progressive or liberal position to insist that Arab and Jewish national rights in former British Madatory Palestine are mutually exclusive?
You don’t have to go too deeply into the draft Palestinian constitution to find a (justifiable) desire of Palestinians to run a state that expresses their Arab national identity, anyway. Shouldn’t the great white fathers of the Green Party find a way to take the peoples on whose behalf they ostensibly implement policies more seriously?:
Section I, Article (5)
Arabic shall be the official language and Islam shall be the official religion in Palestine. Christianity, and all other monotheistic religions, shall be equally revered and respected. The Constitution guarantees equality in rights and duties to all citizens irrespective of their religious belief.
http://www.mopic.gov.ps/consti…
John:
Hamas isn’t the only group who would feel something is “wrong” if you pushed for a single state that was neither Israeli nor Palestinian. The PLO, DFLP, Hezbollah, PPP, and every Palestinian nationalist organization there is would be upset as well. It’s disengenuous to suggest the Hamas and EVERY Zionist are just two sides of the same coin.
I’ll be completely honest: a one-state solution, in theory, would be the best situation. Not just for Israel/Palestine, but for the US, Europe, Africa, and Asia. Nation-states are inherently problematic. Whoever reads this, please don’t misunderstand, I am not in favor of the “one-state” solution. The two-state solution is the best solution simply because A) Jews and Arabs have national rights which THEY WANT to express B) expecting two people who can’t even agree on some of the simplest of issues to come together under one democratic system is a little optimistic. Maybe in a few generations, but I don’t forsee it happening in my lifetime.
But, Zionista is right: the Green Party is a little contradictory when it states it is seriously considering a one-state solution to the conflict and then it says it believes in the right of self-determination for Israelis and Palestinians. Either both groups have those rights or they don’t, you can’t be both.
I used to like the Green Party. When I first read their platform in the fall of 2000 I thought, wow 95% of this is awesome. And then they just went to shit. As much as many might agree with the stance they’ve taken, it is a stance that will be the nail in the coffin of the Green Party of the US.
They won’t get very much support from the Jewish community, if at all, now that they’ve suggested divestment and seriously considered a one-state solution, in addition to publicly admitting to supporting the right of return.
And, if you want a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, you can’t just have the support of one side. You need both.
ZionistaWhat is the problem with two states for two peoples? How is it a genuinely progressive or liberal position to insist that Arab and Jewish national rights in former British Madatory Palestine are mutually exclusive?
Giving “serious consideration” to one state is insisting on one state? Spin, spin spin!
This also in no way denies self determination because their would only be one state if Palestinians and Israelis agree to it.
Cute, a gentile blogger forwarding visitors from a Jewish site with some progressive posters to the IDF webpage, apparently as some sort of lesson.