Nathan Newman wrote:
>Nathan, your paraphrase is just a touch tendentious, wouldn't you
>agree? "The AFL-CIO condemns all acts of terror directed against
>Israel" - and has not a word to say about the Palestinians, who are
>being killed in much larger numbers, whose physical infrastructure
>has been wrecked. He was worse than Wolfowitz, for god's sake. What
>the hell is "decent" about this?
What was decent? How about affirming that many Palestinians want peace, that their national aspirations need to be honored for any "just and lasting peace", and that poverty will only spur more violence.
These are important things to say and almost no one yesterday was saying them. In the excerpt not initially included by Tim, Sweeney said:
"We met with workers from both sides, who expressed a real desire and commitment to work for peace. At that time a secure and lasting peace seemed to be within reach, a peace grounded in security for Israel and hope for a prosperous future and fulfillment of the aspirations of the Palestinian people. Tragically, the hopes of that moment have been shattered. Now we witness violence that can only spread despair among all people, fueled by even greater poverty and unemployment. The cycle must be broken. Conflict must give way to negotiations. Hope must supplant despair."
Linking violence, poverty and despair as a "cycle of violence" is not the message of the Likudniks, who want to blame only the Palestinians. Note that the "poverty and unemployment" does not refer to the sufferings of the Israelis but to that of the Palestinians.
Yes, I would love for Sweeney to take a completely left position on Israel, but I still see this statement as a decent statement.
-- Nathan Newman