Wednesday, March 25, 2009

SIGN PETITION: U.S. must participate in DURBAN II CONFERENCE...

To Sign the petition please click: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/YES2DURBANII?e

U.S. MUST PARTICIPATE IN DURBAN II CONFERENCE
PETITION DEMANDING U.S. PARTICIPATION IN THE APRIL 20-24, 2009 DURBAN REVIEW CONFERENCE, THE FOLLOW-UP TO THE 2001 WORLD CONGRESS AGAINST RACISM (WCAR) -

African Americans for Justice and Peace in Palestine/Israel:-

As African Americans, we have a long history of struggling to achieve civil rights and social justice both at home and in solidarity with oppressed peoples throughout the world. Therefore, we strongly support equal rights for Palestinians and Israelis, justice and peace in the region, and a fair and comprehensive resolution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict in accordance with the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and International Law.

Given the long, bloody and painful history of racism in the United States and throughout much of the world and its continued effects today, we are outraged by our government's refusal to send an official delegation to the upcoming Durban Review Conference to be held in Geneva, Switzerland, April 20-24, 2009.

The banner of the conference reads: "United Against Racism: Dignity and Justice for All." We are dismayed that the U.S. has refused to engage in such a noble process. Organized by the United Nations, The Review Conference sets out to review progress and assess the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA). Adopted by consensus at the 2001 World Conference against Racism (WCAR) in Durban, South Africa, the DDPA is a comprehensive, action-oriented document that proposes concrete measures to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance wherever it occurs, and in recognition that no country can claim to be free of racism, that racism is a global concern, and that tackling it should be a universal effort. Although the DDPA is not legally binding, it has a strong moral value and serves as a basis for advocacy efforts worldwide.

We strongly urge President Obama to reverse the decision not to participate in the 2009 Durban Review Conference, and to send an official U.S. delegation to engage fully in this historic gathering and international effort to combat racism, racism discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance throughout the world.

Monday, March 2, 2009

We Can End Apartheid in Israel, as We Did in South Africa by Bill Fletcher, Jr.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict often inspires a sense of powerlessness. What can average Americans do to bring an end to this decades-old conflict when our leaders have failed so miserably?

And what good is speaking out about Israel's occupation of Palestinian land as the primary obstacle to peace when even former President Jimmy Carter and Nobel Laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu are condemned for their criticism of Israeli policies?

This month in San Jose, average Americans will have the opportunity to take a stand for peace and justice in the Middle East. The Presbyterian Church U.S.A.'s General Assembly began Saturday and runs through Sunday at the San Jose Convention Center. At the meeting, which takes place once every two years, delegates will make policy decisions for the 2.3 million-member denomination.

They will consider corporate engagement, up to divestment, with companies that profit from the obstacles to a just peace in Israel and Palestine. The church is considering approaches to Caterpillar, ITT Industries, Motorola and United Technologies.

The TransAfrica Forum, an organization which I was honored to head, played a leading role in the movement to end apartheid in South Africa. Corporate engagement was one of the most powerful tools in our non-violent arsenal. It was the right moral decision then and it is the right moral decision now. Just as it worked in South Africa, it can work in Palestine and Israel.
Yet Presbyterian delegates are being pressured to vote against similar measures. Some say the tactic unfairly singles out Israel for condemnation. But it is not the country we condemn; it's a system of segregation and inequality.

The Israeli government has established in the Occupied Palestinian Territories a regime of systematic discrimination. It maintains two systems of laws, and a person's rights are based on national origin. Palestinian land is confiscated to build Israeli-only settlements and roads.

Palestinians wait hours in line at more than 500 Israeli checkpoints and roadblocks in the West Bank, while Jewish settlers speed by on modern, well-lit highways.

As Carter, and many Israelis have said, as long as this dual system exists, any peace agreement between Israel and Palestine will be impossible. Palestinians compare Israeli policies to those of apartheid in South Africa. Former Israeli Attorney General Michael Ben-Yair wrote in 2002, "In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture. That regime exists to this day."

South Africans who led the fight against apartheid, like Archbishop Desmond Tutu and former United Nations envoy John Dugard, make similar comparisons.

To the detriment of both Israelis and Palestinians, we provide financial and diplomatic support to maintain these separate and unequal policies. Israel is the No. 1 recipient of U.S. foreign aid: roughly $2.5 billion last year alone. Our government has cast more than 40 vetoes in the United

Nations Security Council to shield Israel from international condemnation.

Divestment from companies that benefit from the occupation is an opportunity for American citizens to do what our government leaders have refused to do: say that our money will not fund human rights abuses any longer.

With humbleness, with love, with compassion for Palestinians and Israelis, I believe in the possibility that both can live as neighbors with security, dignity, and respect. As it did in South Africa, corporate engagement, including divestment, can help make that possibility a reality.

We Can End Apartheid in Israel, as We Did in South Africaby Bill Fletcher, Jr.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bill Fletcher, Jr. is co-founder of the Center for Labor Renewal, executive editor of BlackCommentator.com, and former president of the TransAfrica Forum, which led the US movement to overthrow apartheid in South Africa during the 1980s. He is also the author of Solidarity Divided: The Crisis in Organized Labor and a New Path toward Social Justice. He wrote this article for the Mercury News, and it is made available here courtesy of the Institute for Middle East Understanding.
URL: mrzine.monthlyreview.org/fletcher260608.html

The Gaza Tragedy: The West's Connivance with Israeli Apartheid

Posted January 10th, 2009 by PTZeleza in

Israel is back to flexing its brutal military muscles against the Palestinians in a savage war that has killed hundreds and wounded thousands and pulverized the already tattered infrastructure of the overcrowded refugee ghetto called Gaza, while the West watches with criminal indifference and the corrupt Arab regimes cower with disgraceful impotence. This is a sickeningly familiar story of Western, especially American connivance with settler colonial barbarism. Like apartheid South Africa, Israel pursues the doomed dreams of an exclusive settler colonial state, the racist fantasy that the ‘natives' can be permanently dispossessed of their land and their humanity through ferocious state military terror.

In the end it didn't work for apartheid South Africa, and it won't work for an apartheid Israel. Apartheid South Africa was brought down by generations of internal resistance supported by mounting regional and international solidarity that included an ever tightening noose of sanctions. It is time for all those who truly seek to bring this madness to an end to treat Israel the way apartheid South Africa was treated, as a pariah state, as a skunk of the world, as President Nelson Mandela called apartheid South Africa on his inauguration. In one of the commentaries below, Naomi Klein, the award winning journalist and author of the acclaimed book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, repeats the growing calls for sanctions against Israel.

The lies--of Israel as the perennial unprovoked victim--are told and repeated with wild abandon in the forlorn hope that through sheer repetition they will morph into truth. The echoes with apartheid South Africa are uncanny, unsettling. Remember the claim that apartheid South Africa used to make that it was an embattled democracy in a sea of dictatorships, a lone outpost of western civilization on the ‘dark continent'. But this self-serving rhetoric did not fool the opponents of apartheid, for it was clearly evident that a settler colonial state cannot be democratic for in essence, its very existence, requires the denial of democratic rights, of citizenship, to the occupied ‘natives', to its dispossesed and despised subjects.

The incoming Obama Administration risks dissipating the temporary goodwill garnered in much of the world by the election of President Obama if it continues to coddle the apartheid policies and behavior of the state of Israel. It is troubling that President-elect Obama has been silent on Israel's Gaza invasion on the grounds that there is only one president at a time who can speak on American foreign policy; yet this has not stopped him speaking eloquently and forcefully on the financial crisis facing the United States and how to resolve it. As many thoughtful American observers have noted, America's unconditional support of Israel has not been good for the United States, let alone for the future of Israel itself.

For all those interested in understanding and reshaping U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East I would recommend John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt's persuasive book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, in which they argue there is no compelling strategic, moral, or economic rationale for America's uncritical and uncompromising relationship with Israel. Indeed, U.S. Mideast policy dictated by Israeli interests and the Israel lobby has been a strategic disaster for the United States and will continue to be so for it has entailed promoting and endorsing policies that foster anti-Americanism and are counterproductive for long-term American interests and the well-being of the Mid-East region including Israel itself. Such is the sad state of affairs that it is easier to criticize Israeli policies in Israel than in the United States.

The following commentaries on the current Israeli invasion of Gaza offer eloquent testimony to the utter criminality of the invasion and the West's political and moral culpability. For more go to http://www.zeleza.com/blogging/global-affairs/gaza-tragedy-wests-connivance-israeli-apartheid

Enough. It's time for a (Israel) boycott

It's time. Long past time. The best strategy to end the increasingly bloody occupation is for Israel to become the target of the kind of global movement that put an end to apartheid in South Africa. In July 2005 a huge coalition of Palestinian groups laid out plans to do just that. They called on "people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era". The campaign Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions was born.

Every day that Israel pounds Gaza brings more converts to the BDS cause - even among Israeli Jews. In the midst of the assault roughly 500 Israelis, dozens of them well-known artists and scholars, sent a letter to foreign ambassadors in Israel. It calls for "the adoption of immediate restrictive measures and sanctions" and draws a clear parallel with the anti-apartheid struggle.

"The boycott on South Africa was effective, but Israel is handled with kid gloves ... This international backing must stop."

Yet even in the face of these clear calls, many of us still can't go there. The reasons are complex, emotional and understandable. But they simply aren't good enough. Economic sanctions are the most effective tool in the non-violent arsenal: surrendering them verges on active complicity. Here are the top four objections to the BDS strategy, followed by counter-arguments.
Punitive measures will alienate rather than persuade Israelis.

The world has tried what used to be called "constructive engagement". It has failed utterly. Since 2006 Israel has been steadily escalating its criminality: expanding settlements, launching an outrageous war against Lebanon, and imposing collective punishment on Gaza through the brutal blockade. Despite this escalation, Israel has not faced punitive measures - quite the opposite. The weapons and $3bn in annual aid the US sends Israel are only the beginning. Throughout this key period, Israel has enjoyed a dramatic improvement in its diplomatic, cultural and trade relations with a variety of other allies. For instance, in 2007 Israel became the first country outside Latin America to sign a free-trade deal with the Mercosur bloc. In the first nine months of 2008, Israeli exports to Canada went up 45%. A new deal with the EU is set to double Israel's exports of processed food. And in December European ministers "upgraded" the EU-Israel association agreement, a reward long sought by Jerusalem.

It is in this context that Israeli leaders started their latest war: confident they would face no meaningful costs. It is remarkable that over seven days of wartime trading, the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange's flagship index actually went up 10.7%. When carrots don't work, sticks are needed.
Israel is not South Africa.

Of course it isn't. The relevance of the South African model is that it proves BDS tactics can be effective when weaker measures (protests, petitions, backroom lobbying) fail. And there are deeply distressing echoes of apartheid in the occupied territories: the colour-coded IDs and travel permits, the bulldozed homes and forced displacement, the settler-only roads. Ronnie Kasrils, a prominent South African politician, said the architecture of segregation he saw in the West Bank and Gaza was "infinitely worse than apartheid". That was in 2007, before Israel began its full-scale war against the open-air prison that is Gaza.

Why single out Israel when the US, Britain and other western countries do the same things in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Boycott is not a dogma; it is a tactic. The reason the strategy should be tried is practical: in a country so small and trade-dependent, it could actually work.

Boycotts sever communication; we need more dialogue, not less.

This one I'll answer with a personal story. For eight years, my books have been published in Israel by a commercial house called Babel. But when I published The Shock Doctrine, I wanted to respect the boycott. On the advice of BDS activists, including the wonderful writer John Berger, I contacted a small publisher called Andalus. Andalus is an activist press, deeply involved in the anti-occupation movement and the only Israeli publisher devoted exclusively to translating Arabic writing into Hebrew. We drafted a contract that guarantees that all proceeds go to Andalus's work, and none to me. I am boycotting the Israeli economy but not Israelis.

Our modest publishing plan required dozens of phone calls, emails and instant messages, stretching between Tel Aviv, Ramallah, Paris, Toronto and Gaza City. My point is this: as soon as you start a boycott strategy, dialogue grows dramatically. The argument that boycotts will cut us off from one another is particularly specious given the array of cheap information technologies at our fingertips. We are drowning in ways to rant at each other across national boundaries. No boycott can stop us.

Just about now, many a proud Zionist is gearing up for major point-scoring: don't I know that many of these very hi-tech toys come from Israeli research parks, world leaders in infotech? True enough, but not all of them. Several days into Israel's Gaza assault, Richard Ramsey, managing director of a British telecom specialising in voice-over-internet services, sent an email to the Israeli tech firm MobileMax: "As a result of the Israeli government action in the last few days we will no longer be in a position to consider doing business with yourself or any other Israeli company."

Ramsey says his decision wasn't political; he just didn't want to lose customers. "We can't afford to lose any of our clients," he explains, "so it was purely commercially defensive."
It was this kind of cold business calculation that led many companies to pull out of South Africa two decades ago. And it's precisely the kind of calculation that is our most realistic hope of bringing justice, so long denied, to Palestine.

A version of this column was published in the Nation (thenation.com)
naomiklein.org

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009