How to move forward from Obama’s Jerusalem Speech: Three Proposals for Renewed Work

Details

Written by Gilbert Schramm Gilbert Schramm

Published: 26 March 2013 26 March 2013

How to move forward from Obama’s Jerusalem Speech: Three Proposals for Renewed Work

(An action link to a “signon” petition appears at the end of this article and here: http://signon.org/sign/a-petition-to-president?source=c.em.mt&r_by=5439069)

By Gilbert Schramm, March 24, 2013

This week saw a courageous speech by President Obama in Israel. In it he said many things that, as a historian and a longtime student of the problem of Palestine, I take serious issue with. These issues are important and will doubtless be revisited along the way, but now is not the time to get sidetracked by them. Now is a time for renewed action.

Leaving all of its faults aside, I believe that Obama’s speech can be a new starting point towards  a just and comprehensive peace in Palestine. I believe that all of us who are concerned with US security, with Israeli security and with security, human rights, and peace and justice for the people of Palestine, should now come together and use this moment (that President Obama has taken great political risk to create) to rethink our strategy and try to re-energize ourselves to help finally achieve a viable Palestinian state. To simply attack the weak points of his presentation would be immature and a waste of time. Let’s try to see what we can build on.

The point is not so much that Obama took the risk of bringing the imperatives of peace and justice up in such a pointed way and before such an unpredictable audience. The real point is the overwhelmingly positive response he received from the Israeli audience—an audience that has lived with the obsolete, confrontational, dead-end rhetoric of Benjamin Netanyahu and other “hardliners” for so long. Clearly these people are tired of the policies of Likud and their allies. So, Obama’s speech clearly suggests that there is an opening for rebuilding a seriously viable Israeli peace movement. We, in America, should try to open channels through which can communicate our support for them.

Read more: How to move forward from Obama’s Jerusalem Speech: Three Proposals for Renewed Work

Ramzy Baroud and Phyllis Bennis speaking in Olympia for the 10th anniversary of Rachel Corrie's death

Details

Written by Peter Miller Peter Miller

Published: 19 March 2013 19 March 2013

Here are links to the audio of Ramzy Baroud and Phyllis Bennis speaking in Olympia for the 10th anniversary of Rachel Corrie's death. Both talks are excellent.

The audio starts part way into Ramzy's talk.  The second audio is the Q&A session.

RamzyBaroud-PhyllisBennis-Talks-2013-03-16.wav (69 Meg)

RamzyBaroud-PhyllisBennis-QA-2013-03-16.wav (52 Meg)

A Deconstruction of S.RES 65

Details

Written by Gilbert Schramm Gilbert Schramm

Published: 14 March 2013 14 March 2013

Introduction:

The article that follows is a point by point commentary on S. RES 65, an initiative put forth by AIPAC which has already garnered more than 40 co-sponsors in the US Senate. The resolution is not just a show of force by AIPAC; it also makes a US war with Iran (at a time and place of Israel’s choosing) much more likely. A show of legislative support like this, even if it does not ostensibly commit the US to war with Iran, certainly makes such a commitment in the future much more likely.

The dynamics are simple: with such a show of US Senate support for US action in the case of a confrontation between Israel and Iran, it will become much easier for Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu to convince his cabinet that a pre-emptive strike by Israel will actually receive US support in the event that Israel decides to exercise its military options.

Let us be clear. The position of the US President, under advisement from US intelligence, is that such an Israel first strike is not only unnecessary, but that even the threat of it undermines the administration’s already robust efforts to discourage Iran from weaponizing its still peaceful nuclear program.

Another point should be well understood. If Israel were to stage a pre-emptive attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, even using only conventional weapons, it would still, arguably, be a case of using nuclear weapons in a “first strike” capacity. An attack with conventional weapons on a functioning nuclear facility has enormous consequences. Since it would likely release highly radioactive materials over a wide area, it would be, for all practical purposes, the equivalent of a terrorist group detonating a “dirty bomb” in a populated civilian area.

Since, after the fact, it would be almost impossible to sort out whether Israel had used a nuclear weapon in the initial strike, or whether the resulting radiation were the result of radioactive material from the facility itself, the Israeli military, doing a simple cost/benefit analysis, might well be tempted to use a nuclear weapon in the initial attack and then make excuses later. Tragically, the results for civilians in the area would still be devastating…

In any case, as I hope readers will see, reasonable assessments conclude that S. RES 65 is another step closer to a US war with Iran. As such I hope readers of this document will reject it utterly, and communicate their views to their various representatives as quickly and forcefully as possible.

Read more: A Deconstruction of S.RES 65

Can Israel be Jewish and democratic?

Details

Written by Joseph Levine Joseph Levine

Published: 11 March 2013 11 March 2013

MARCH 9, 2013, 7:30 PM

On Questioning the Jewish State

By JOSEPH LEVINE

I was raised in a religious Jewish environment, and though we were not strongly Zionist, I always took it to be self-evident that “Israel has a right to exist.” Now anyone who has debated the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will have encountered this phrase often. Defenders of Israeli policies routinely accuse Israel’s critics of denying her right to exist, while the critics (outside of a small group on the left, where I now find myself) bend over backward to insist that, despite their criticisms, of course they affirm it. The general mainstream consensus seems to be that to deny Israel’s right to exist is a clear indication of anti-Semitism (a charge Jews like myself are not immune to), and therefore not an option for people of conscience.

Over the years I came to question this consensus and to see that the general fealty to it has seriously constrained open debate on the issue, one of vital importance not just to the people directly involved — Israelis and Palestinians — but to the conduct of our own foreign policy and, more important, to the safety of the world at large. My view is that one really ought to question Israel’s right to exist and that doing so does not manifest anti-Semitism. The first step in questioning the principle, however, is to figure out what it means.

One problem with talking about this question calmly and rationally is that the phrase “right to exist” sounds awfully close to “right to life,” so denying Israel its right to exist sounds awfully close to permitting the extermination of its people. In light of the history of Jewish persecution, and the fact that Israel was created immediately after and largely as a consequence of the Holocaust, it isn’t surprising that the phrase “Israel’s right to exist” should have this emotional impact. But as even those who insist on the principle will admit, they aren’t claiming merely the impermissibility of exterminating Israelis. So what is this “right” that many uphold as so basic that to question it reflects anti-Semitism and yet is one that I claim ought to be questioned?

Read more: Can Israel be Jewish and democratic?