'Restoring Sanity' Means Reclaiming the Mantle of Principled Progressive Struggle with Diverse Base

Details

Written by Barbara Ransby Barbara Ransby

Published: 02 November 2010 02 November 2010

Hits: 3311 3311

'Restoring Sanity' Means Reclaiming the Mantle of a Principled Progressive Struggle With a Diverse Base of People
Barbara Ransby
Author, 'Ella Baker and the Black Freedom Movement: A Radical Democratic Vision'

Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert provide much needed comic relief from the current sad situation we find ourselves in. Given the tens of thousands of folks who showed up for their "Rally to Restore Sanity," on the Mall this past weekend, many others share this view. Unfortunately, despite the therapeutic effects of a good laugh in the face of lunacy, we are not going to joke and jive our way to a better social and political situation. There are also two seriously troubling things about the Stewart and Colbert rally.

First of all, why was the Stewart and Colbert rally so white? I looked through hundreds of photos online, with funny, witty homemade signs, but I counted only a handful of Black or Brown faces, and by a 'handful,' I mean about five. That is obscene. Does that mean the fan base is as white as Glenn Beck's, albeit white people with better commonsense and better politics? But lily white nonetheless. Or does it mean that "moderation" is just not the galvanizing slogan that most struggling Black people want to hear these days.

Unemployment, foreclosures and the so-called war on drugs, and its corollary mass incarceration of nonviolent offenders, have hit Black and Latino communities hard and heavy. Growing anti-immigrant policies from Arizona to Georgia (where colleges just barred undocumented students) have created a sense of urgency among the Latino population, citizens and residents.

Another explanation is that movement-building requires deliberate, conscious and methodical outreach to communities and organizations often excluded or marginalized in the dominant body politic, and who might be understandably skeptical of a mass gathering convened by two lone white men, however liberal or progressive they may be. In a predominately Black city like Washington, with such enormous poverty and homelessness all around, how can a progressive mobilization be so devoid of a Black presence?

And secondly there is the content of the rallying cry that our two humorous heroes chose as their banners: embrace sanity, combat fear, and celebrate moderation and civility. Uhmm, to embrace the tepid and temperate tone of the day, "I guess I kinda sorta agree with that, mostly." But this is not a "kinda sorta" moment. I am convinced that standing in the middle of the road is not going to get us anything, except maybe run over by a big Mac truck with a Confederate flag on it.

One of the great lines of the old labor movement, and of a popular movement song, was "which side are you on?" This was echoed in the Civil Rights protests of the 1950s and 60s. During those historic decades of struggle against racial tyranny and White Supremacy in the South, young activists would approach would-be supporters and ask -- "are you with us?" Middle class people living comfortable lives were forced to "choose sides" and "take a stand," because lines had been drawn, breaking the routines of business as usual.

Ultimately, this challenge created new bonds of unity, understanding and solidarity that transcended generations-old lines of division between northerners and southerners, Blacks and Whites, middle class and working class people. All this to say, polarizing a debate is not always a bad thing. It can help to clarify and illuminate an issue. It can force people to think carefully and soberly about their own moral compass, and ultimately side with the position which is the most just and fair.

In our visceral response to craziness and meanness of the far right we have vilified, or perhaps just devalued the great integrity of embracing strongly-held convictions. It is not wrong to have strong views or ideals. The substance and basis for our ideas and ideals is what we should be judged for. Compassion, equity, inclusion, self-determination, and freedom are not dirty words. And the ideals of feminism, anti-racism, anti-imperialism, and socialism have represented some of the most humane and noble human impulses of the modern era. We don't have to hide or apologize for being a part of these traditions, even though like all traditions, they were not perfect; nor do we have to reduce our convictions to the "politics of niceness."

The One Nation march organized largely by union groups and an alliance of progressive activists on October 2 got a lot less press and fanfare but brought out a much more diverse crowd, and a crowd whose members had no confusion about which side they were on. They were on the side of the oppressed and downtrodden, the left out and left back, the locked up and locked out. It was a rally about building a movement for social change and human progress.

So, while at the end of a long week of meetings and picket lines, debates and defeats, I settle in to watch Colbert and Stewart make fun of my enemies. It is a way to restore my sanity. It is not the route to building a movement.
 

The Rotting Safed Cheese

Details

Written by Gideon Levy Gideon Levy

Published: 29 October 2010 29 October 2010

Hits: 3212 3212

Think of a town in Austria. Or perhaps France. A mountainous, ancient major district town, with a college situated in the middle of it, whose students include quite a few Jews. The town priest calls an "emergency meeting," funded by the government and held in the municipal cultural center, attended by 400 sympathetic citizens, including 18 priests from the area, calling for a ban on renting apartments to Jewish students.

The deputy mayor supports the meeting. The priest says sweetly: "I have nothing against Jews, but they shouldn't live in our town. Let them study in their yeshivas, not with us."

Residents of the town complain: "The Jews don't respect the place on Sundays," the public park has been turned into a "pigsty," the hospital has become a "dangerous place." Renting apartments to Jews, the priests warn, will hurt property values, and lead to the danger that our pure children will convert. A few young men harass Jews and beat them up; the Jews say they live in great fear.

If this took place in France, and even more so in Germany, it sounds quite bad. But this all happened in Safed - and against Arabs. If it had happened in Europe, Jewish organizations would shout to the high heavens, Israel would recall its ambassador for consultations. The president of the country, whether it be France or Austria, would hurry to the tainted city and do everything possible to calm things down. They would apologize to the Jewish students and instruct the police to see to their safety. The priests would be tried for anti-Semitism.

About 10 years ago, I found myself in Safed for a bar mitzvah celebration. Suddenly a bearded tough guy appeared in front of me and said threateningly: "For your own good, get out of town. We don't want you here." Since then, I have visited Safed during its bombardment in the Second Lebanon War and to attend the Hasidic music festival that I enjoy, and the city has only gone downhill.

An explosive mixture of poverty and religion, desolation and nationalism, has turned the beautiful city into Israel's ugliest. The city's beloved artists' quarter has been replaced by a nationalists' quarter. The famous Safed cheese has gone rotten, terrible decay has set in. The formerly mixed city - whose Arab residents were forced to flee in 1948, never to return, including the refugee Mahmoud Abbas, their abandoned beautiful stone houses to become pizzerias and ruins - has become the most racist city in the country.

That is what happens when we stay silent and forgiving. Four years ago the state dropped charges of incitement to racism against Safed's chief rabbi, Shmuel Eliyahu, after he called for a ban on renting apartments to Arabs and allowing Arab students to study at Safed College. The rabbi was required at the time to retract his statements.

A few days ago, Eliyahu returned to the spotlight in a big way - at the "emergency meeting" funded by the Safed religious council and held in the cultural center named after Yigal Alon, a man who also knew a thing or two about expelling Arabs. Rabbi Eliyahu issued a religious ruling, warning against the "declining value of apartments" and "assimilation," the incited crowd cheering him on.

Safed can continue to rot in its racism; it is not the main problem. Many countries have such centers of malignancy. The problem lies in the response from society and the government. The Arabs do not have an "anti-defamation league," and people are not buying the fight against anti-Arab racism like they do warnings against anti-Semitism, which cause hearts worldwide to tremble.

Israel is silent in the face of Safed's impurity. The prime minister does not consider visiting the town to apologize to the Arab students, the student unions fighting against stipends handed out to yeshiva students do not have time to engage in a solidarity struggle with their classmates, victims of hatred. The rabbi remains at his post, no matter how much slime he spreads.
Today it's Safed; tomorrow, Ramat Aviv. There, too, residents complain to the owner of the neighborhood market that his delivery man is an Arab

Some Israelis Hoping for A GOP Win, But Will History Repeat Itself?

Details

Written by Nathan Guttman Nathan Guttman

Published: 29 October 2010 29 October 2010

Hits: 3419 3419

New York Democrat Gary Ackermanand other Jewish Democrats point to the forceful criticisms they conveyed to the White House when they thought that Obama was leaning too hard on Israel.

“If you need the president, you need us as chairs of the committees,” Ackerman said as he listed what he called the “first-class team” of Jewish pro-Israel Democrats who chair key House committees: Berman at Foreign Affairs, Barney Frank at Financial Services, Henry Waxman at the Energy and Commerce committee, Sander Levin at Ways and Means, and Ackerman himself in his role as head of the Middle East subcommittee. “We are all pro-Israel and we all have major, major, major influence in the executive branch.”

Read more: Some Israelis Hoping for A GOP Win, But Will History Repeat Itself?

In the End, Only One Way to See It

Details

Written by Michael Khaled for MIFTAH Michael Khaled for MIFTAH

Published: 28 October 2010 28 October 2010

Hits: 3158 3158

I came to the Holy Land thinking I could find some type of middle ground and lodge myself there. As a Palestinian-American, I am equipped with the knowledge, cultural awareness and communication skills to show a Western audience the unvarnished truth behind the conflict. I try not to get emotionally involved with the political issues and "stay above" the fray. As a trained journalist, that is what I was taught.

Yet I recently watched a Palestinian friend get into a political discussion with an Israeli security guard on the way to the dorms at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. My friend is a fiery artist from the north with Israeli citizenship, and the guard, an imposing Sephardic Jew of Moroccan descent.

It heated up quickly, when the guard asked her if she calls herself Palestinian or Israeli. Something as simple as a person's self-identity can be seen as an act of defiance when the overarching system is built to replace one national identity with another. He attacked the very premise that there is such a thing as a Palestinian nation saying that this came as a response to Zionism and Jewish immigration. "Without us here, you would be Jordanians."

They discussed the gamut of historical flashpoints with each side taking completely opposite conclusions from each event: the British occupation (helped Jews colonize Palestine; kept Jewish immigration at a trickle), the 1948 war (well armed European Jews ethnically cleansed Palestine; five Arab armies attacked an infant Israeli state), Deir Yassin (a massacre; a hoax), Yasser Arafat (a national symbol of resistance; the greatest terrorist ever), the separation wall (a land grab; necessary to stop terrorists), failure of the peace process (Israelis sabotage the negotiations; Palestinians never fail to miss an opportunity).

The two distinct narratives here are diametrically opposed in every case, and for each event both sides have a self-serving interpretation. These interpretations are internalized and have become the personal and national narratives that form the basis of all assumptions when discussing the conflict.

Whatever overlap there has been in the two perspectives is diminishing every day as each side watches the other retreat further into cynicism and suspicion which leads to even further retreat. A Hebrew University poll conducted at the beginning of the month show just six percent of Palestinians and five percent of Israelis believe there is a high chance the talks will succeed. The same poll also found 54 percent of Israelis fear being injured by Arabs in their daily lives while 76 percent of Palestinians have the same fear of Israelis.

Almost daily, news comes of more racist and anti-democratic initiatives coming out of the Knesset and the response from the public varies between muted anxiety and complete ambivalence. Among Palestinians, there is a feeling of disparity and hopelessness. They are just watching and waiting for the next bout of violence to break out so they can try to duck out of the way before getting caught in the crossfire.

I’ve noticed a complete disillusionment from people on the street, as if both sides have stopped caring what their leaders are doing and just focus on their daily lives. How long can that mentality last in this period of "relative calm" when a handful of Palestinians are killed every week, a plot of land confiscated here, an olive orchard burned there? Since the end of the housing “freeze”, settlement construction has raced at a pace four times faster than in recent years. Once there is a big-enough perceived threat to the status quo, the powers-that-be will find a way to provoke another batch of ever more destructive violence.

Of course not all have resigned themselves to this never-ending cycle. Peace activists, Palestinian and Israeli, are active as ever hosting events, leading demonstrations, going to court, and generally blunting the effects of the racist system people face daily. Yet others fight to uphold the system they see as their birthright to protect, by burning olive orchards, rallying for the assassinated ultra-nationalist Meir Kahane, and requiring loyalty oaths for non-Jews.

Essentially I feel less and less like an impartial stance on the conflict is possible. As the gulf between the sides widens, anyone who tries to split the difference and take a middle road will be labeled a threat to the state's legitimacy by Israelis and a Zionist sympathizer by Palestinians.

Most come into this with a clearly chosen side based on their heritage and loyalties, yet I cannot help but think that there is a more objective way of viewing the conflict on a fundamental level. If things are ever going to change, it will require us to reframe the discussion in a way that everyone can understand and identify with. We must apply universal values of equality and justice without getting sucked into the same back and forth between the narratives.

In the end, when the current situation in Palestine and Israel boils down to its basic context, there is a system in place that methodically works to build up one group and subjugate another. Its mechanisms are sophisticatedly concealed under a veneer of legitimacy from a beneficiary public that is content to move forward with eyes closed to the daily injustices committed in their name. These injustices enfeeble the victims’ ability to move forward and build themselves up. It is a system based on racial lines, and it is a formula antithetical to common morality which has been proven time and again in similar schemes to be unsustainable.

Michael Khaled is a Writer for the Media and Information Department at the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH). He can be contacted at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.