SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (73324)2/12/2003 8:31:05 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
Saying no to war

By James Carroll
Columnist
The Boston Globe
2/11/2003

DON'T BE FOOLED by Colin Powell. With testimony before the UN Security Council last week, the secretary of state brought many formerly ambivalent politicians and pundits into the war party. But that is a measure of how callow the entire American debate over war against Iraq has been. The question is not whether Saddam Hussein is up to no good. Powell's indictment confirmed the Iraqi's malfeasance, although with no surprises and no demonstration of immediate threat. The question, rather, is what to do about Saddam's malevolence.

Don't be fooled by Donald Rumsfeld, either. The secretary of defense said in Munich on Saturday, ''The risks of war need to be balanced against the risks of doing nothing while Iraq pursues weapons of mass destruction.'' Just as Powell fudged on what the question is, Rumsfeld fudged on there being no alternative to war. Ongoing and ever more robust inspections, like those proposed by France and Germany, are an alternative to war. Containment is an alternative to war. And an aggressive application of the principles of international law is an alternative to war.

Powell's prosecutorial summary of the case against Saddam should have been prelude not to further warmongering but to a legal indictment of the Iraqi leader for crimes against humanity. In what court, you ask, and under what jurisdiction? America's imminent war takes on an absurd -- and also tragic -- character in the light of what else is happening right now. Last week the International Criminal Court was initiated with the formal election of judges. Next month the court will be official. Its purpose is exactly to deal with offenses like those of which Saddam stands accused. A forceful indictment in such a forum, followed by a trial, verdict, and world-enforced sentence, has an unprecedented potential for a laser-like release of transforming moral energy.

The court intends on the world scene what has already happened within nations -- the replacement of violent force with the force of law. A true alternative to war.

But the 139 nations that signed the agreement no longer include the United States, since George W. Bush ''unsigned'' that treaty early in his term. The US refusal to participate in the new world court makes it irrelevant to the present crisis, but that refusal also lays bare the world's gravest problem -- an American contempt for the creation of alternatives to war.

The most important reason to be skeptical of the Bush administration's claim of necessity has nothing to do with Saddam. It has to do with Bush's own palpable predisposition in favor of war, and when the casus belli is in dispute, predisposition counts for everything.

Powell's performance at the UN was compared to Adlai Stevenson's in 1962, but war was averted in the Cuban crisis, as it had been in the Berlin crisis the year before, precisely because John F. Kennedy's predisposition inclined him away from war, not toward it.

Kennedy's inaugural address, which is often misremembered as a Cold War call to arms, was a straightforward challenge to create new structures of peace. He proposed a litany of political change -- an extension of the ''writ'' of the UN, ending the arms race, replacing the ''balance of power (with) a new world of law,'' a new trust in negotiation (''never fear to negotiate''), an affirmation that ''civility is not a sign of weakness.'' On each of those points -- the UN, the arms race, international law, negotiations, even civility -- the Bush administration has reversed the momentum that began with Kennedy.

And as for war, in the most misremembered passage of all, Kennedy made his repudiation explicit: ''Now the trumpet summons us again -- not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need, not as a call to battle, though embattled we are, but the call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out . . . a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.''

War itself the enemy. Not the sentiment of ''idealists,'' but the supremely pragmatic conclusion of men and women who saw the horrors of war played out in the 20th century. In rejecting Bush's war, France and Germany honor that memory today, as do the creators of the International Criminal Court. ''War never again!'' Pope Paul VI declared -- also at the United Nations -- in 1965. When he cried, ''No more war!'' a generation of world leaders cheered him -- all but one. Then, too, in that autumn of Rolling Thunder, an American president defied the universal longing for another way. But the pope did not hesitate to cite ''a great man now departed, John Kennedy'' against the warmonger in Washington, and neither do I.

''Mankind must put an end to war,'' the pope recalled Kennedy saying, ''or war will put an end to mankind.''

_______________________________________________

James Carroll's column appears regularly in the Globe.

boston.com



To: Brumar89 who wrote (73324)2/12/2003 12:20:04 PM
From: Jacob Snyder  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
<Anti-Semitism and McCarthyism by the Stalinists running Antiwar Movement>

The forces in society who are dissatisfied with the Status Quo, are a coalition of different interest groups:

1. feminism
2. environmentalism
3. pacifism
4. anti-colonialism
5. anti-racism

There is also a fading remnant of socialists and communists, but those are defeated memes. So defeated, that their names are mostly used today as a curse.

Now, the problem for Jews is that the above coalition makes these associations:

Jew = zionist = colonialist = racist

So, Jews get excluded from the coalition of "progressive elements". By implication, Jews can't really be feminists, environmentalists, or pacifists, because they are part of the anti-Progressive Status Quo coalition. And, if a Jew tries to straddle the two coalitions, she/he is just confused.

This is a new position for Jews, who have never before had the problem of being part of the Ruling Class.



To: Brumar89 who wrote (73324)2/12/2003 1:21:06 PM
From: Win Smith  Respond to of 281500
 
Israel's Jewish Critics Aren't 'Self-Hating'

[ as long as you're quoting Lerner . . . ]

There Is No Path To Jewish Security That Does Not Also Lead Us To Global Security For All Peoples.
By Michael Lerner
April 28 2002

Every day, I receive anguished letters, e-mails and phone calls from members of my congregation and others who have been tagged with the label "self-hating Jews." Why? Solely because they've raised questions about Israel's policy toward Palestinians.

There is something deeply hurtful about that term and about the way the Jewish community is treating its dissenters, something reminiscent of the cultural repressiveness of 1950s McCarthyism and its labeling of dissidents as "anti-American." Jews in America are all Jews by choice. Those who wish to leave their religion and ethnicity behind can easily do so. Increasing numbers, when asked about their ethnicity or religion, answer, "my parents are Jewish," indicating that they no longer feel connected to that identity. But most Jews don't make that choice. They feel a special resonance with the history and culture of a people that has proclaimed a message of love, justice and peace while others pursued paths of cruelty and domination. They feel a special pride in being part of a people that has insisted on the possibility of "tikkun," a Hebrew word expressing a belief that the world can be fundamentally healed and transformed. They know that the Jews have paid dearly for that belief, and, though they are angry at the history of anti-Semitism and convinced that no one should ever have to endure again what we endured from Christian Europe, they are also proud that Jewish values kept us from becoming like our oppressors.

A Los Angeles Times poll in 1988 found that some 50% of Jews surveyed identified "a commitment to social equality" as the characteristic most important to their Jewish identity. Only 17% cited a commitment to Israel. Similar statistics have been reported many times in the subsequent 14 years by other pollsters. No wonder, then, that these social-justice oriented American Jews should feel betrayed by Israeli policies that seem transparently immoral and self-destructive.

All of us are outraged at the immoral acts of Palestinian terrorists who blow up Israelis as they sit at a Seder table, or shop in their stores, or sit in cafes or ride in buses. We know that these acts cannot be forgiven, no matter how they have been provoked.

But many of us also understand that Israeli treatment of Palestinians has been immoral and outrageous. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled their homes in 1948, and recent Israeli historical research has shown that most of them fled not because they were responding to the appeal of Arab leaders, but because they were terrified at the acts of violence by right-wing Israeli terrorists or because they were actually physically forced from their homes by the Israeli army. (The slaying of some 250 Palestinian civilians in a town that had indicated loyalty to Israel, Deir Yassin, was intentionally aimed at convincing Palestinians that they would not be safe in a new Israeli state, no matter how much they wished to live in peace.) Palestinian refugees and their families now number more than 3 million, and many live in horrifying conditions in refugee camps under Israeli military rule.

Despite Israel's promises in 1993 at Oslo to end its occupation of the Palestinian territories by May 4, 1999, the actual path Israel took was the opposite. After a right-wing Israeli murdered peace-oriented Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Israel actually increased the number of West Bank settlers, from around 120,000 in 1993 to some 200,000 by the time Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak met with Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat at Camp David. And though the Israeli and U.S. media bought the myth that what had been offered to Palestinians was "the best they could expect," and that hence their rejection of the offer was proof that they wanted nothing less than the full destruction of Israel, the actual details show a quite different story. Not only did Barak offer Arafat less than had been promised in 1993, but he refused to provide anything at all in the way of reparations or compensation for the refugees. Instead, he insisted that Arafat sign a statement saying that the terms being offered by Barak would end all claims by the Palestinian people against Israel and would represent a resolution of all outstanding issues. No Palestinian leader could have signed that agreement and abandoned the needs of those refugees.

Though it is popularly thought that negotiations ended there, in fact they continued at Taba until Ariel Sharon's election ended the process, one which, according to the then-Minister of Justice Yossi Beilin (writing recently in the New York Times), was very close to arriving at a full agreement between the two peoples.

Sharon did not want that agreement, because he had always opposed any deal that would involve abandoning the West Bank settlements, which he had helped establish in the 1980s--precisely to ensure that Israel would never abandon the occupied territories. Using the excuse of responding to the (totally immoral and unacceptable) acts of terror by some Palestinians, Sharon has recently set out to destroy the institutions of Palestinian society, and they have done so brutally, with great harm to many civilians.

No wonder, then, that many Jews would feel deeply upset by Israeli policies. On the one hand, they can see that the policies are leading to a frightening upsurge of anti-Semitism. On the other hand, they can see that the policies are not providing security for Israel, but instead creating new generations of future terrorists and convincing the world that Israel has lost its moral compass.

Still, many Jews and non-Jews have been intimidated by the intense campaign being waged on behalf of Israeli "political correctness." Organized by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and by other Jewish institutions, they label those critical of Israel "self-hating" if they are Jewish or anti-Semitic if not. They mobilize large amounts of money to defeat candidates deemed insufficiently pro-Israel. Many rabbis and professionals have told me recently that they fear for their jobs should they even begin to articulate their doubts about Israeli policy--much less give explicit support to calls for an end to the occupation.

Yet, far from being self-hating, Jews are affirming the highest values of their culture and religion when they conclude that being pro-Israel today requires pushing Israel to end the occupation and break the cycle of violence on both sides.

Many American Jews understand the need in today's world to abandon chauvinism and insistence on Jewish "specialness." We need instead to affirm those parts of Jewish tradition that lead us to be able to recognize the spirit of God in every human being on the planet, and to recognize that our security will come not from more armaments for Israel, but from more love and connection between the Jewish people and all other peoples. There is no special path to Jewish safety and security that does not also lead us to global safety and security for all peoples.

I have great compassion for Jews who can't imagine a world in which other people can be trusted. The horrors of the Holocaust continue to reverberate. But if we allow that fear to shape our current perceptions of possibility, we will self-fulfillingly recreate the very world of antagonism toward Jews that we feared--and that would give Adolf Hitler a posthumous victory. The best response to the hatred of the past is to pursue a path that affirms love, justice and peace, and rejects the "realists" who insist that our only security lies in military domination over the Palestinian people.

It is time for the U.S. to sponsor a multinational force to physically separate and protect Israel and Palestine from each other, and to then convene an international conference to impose a final settlement. The settlement would include an end to the occupation, evacuation of the settlements, reparations for Palestinian refugees (and also for Jews who fled Arab lands), recognition of Israel by surrounding Arab states and an end to all acts of terror and violence. This is the goal of thousands of American Jews and our non-Jewish allies--who have recently formed the Tikkun Community--a progressive pro-Israel organization. Unwilling to be considered traitors and no longer sure that Jewishness is worth preserving if it means the Jewishness of Sharon, we have joined together because we are not willing to allow our culture and religion to lose its prophetic message of generosity, compassion and open-heartedness. ("Thou shalt love the stranger.") No surprise that we have been greeted by some Jews with their favorite mantra: You are self-hating Jews.

Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of Tikkun and, with Cornel West and Susannah Heschel, co-chair of The Tikkun Community. He is author of "Spirit Matters." He is participating in a teach-in today, April

[ googled from Scott's favorite site, truthout.org , originally from the LA Times, it appears ]



To: Brumar89 who wrote (73324)2/12/2003 1:25:52 PM
From: Win Smith  Respond to of 281500
 
[ Elsewhere on the Lerner front, from this appetizing little web site, masada2000.org , a contribution somewhat more in keeping with the dominant paradigm here ]

Let's Get Specific... "Rabbi" Michael Lerner

For every precious fighter for Israel, there are, unfortunately, Jews who despise being Jewish and wish Israel harm. So-called academics, intellectuals and thinkers, though not the exclusive Israel-bashers, do seem to have cornered this market with their damaged identities.

Michael Lerner, Hippie at LargeIn America, Jewish "thinkers" are perfectly willing to spill their ink defending those who would spill Jewish blood. Foremost in this crusade is San Francisco's very own "New Age Rabbi," Michael Lerner... America's baddest little Jew-Boy who first hit the pavement as one of the 1970s "Seattle Seven." [Note: any white powder on his mustache back then was probably cocaine, not anthrax]

This so-called "rabbi" (with a VERY small "r") is the founder of Tikkun magazine... the most successful supplier of "touchy-feely" Judaism. Jewish Leftism to those most interested in the very latest thing in Israel-bashing. This back-stabber is "appalled by Israel's brutal repression of Palestinian uprisings" and continues to this day to blame Jews for aggression against their enemies. Even during Israel's recent economic hardship, he and his San Francisco Bay area followers partook in a Passover boycott of Matzos from Israel to protest Israel's "oppression of Palestinians." [By the way, Lerner is renown in the Bay area for his "Tikkun Macaroons" made from rotten eggs, Matzo and hashish.] WHAT on earth is wrong with this man! . . .