ANSWER really needs some emergency PR assistance! Any (non-Jewish) group organizing a protest against the Israeli occupation on Rosh Hashanah is smoking unbelievably big rocks. I wonder what would have been so hard about simply picking a different day.
Liza
> From: Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu>
> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 07:50:24 -0400
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: [lbo-talk] Notes on the UFPJ Conference (June 6-8, Chicago)
>
> I attended the United for Peace and Justice conference in Chicago, on
> June 6-8, as a delegate of a local group Columbus Campaign for Arms
> Control ("over 500 participants attended, from 38 states and
> approximately 350 organizations," according to UFPJ). I'm happy to
> have attended the conference, meeting many organizers and
> intellectuals whom I wouldn't have been able to meet otherwise
> (networking is always the best part of any conference). More or
> less, I got what I bargained for. I chose to go to the UFPJ
> conference, rather than the May 17-18 International ANSWER conference
> (which about "850 activists and organizers" attended, according to
> ANSWER), because I thought that whether or not I attended the ANSWER
> conference would make no difference in its outcome. The politics of
> ANSWER is clearly determined by its steering committee, whose members
> are strongly united by a principle of anti-imperialism. For better
> and worse, there wouldn't have been much to be discussed at the
> ANSWER conference. UFPJ, a coalition of national and local groups
> with divergent perspectives on many issues, is another story. On one
> hand, UFPJ is a little more open to democratic participation from
> below than ANSWER (though the UFPJ conference, too, was firmly
> managed from above by its organizers at certain key points). On the
> other hand, UFPJ finds it more difficult to work out a clearly
> anti-imperialist political direction (rather than just an anti-Bush
> or anti-war position) than ANSWER does.
>
> Below you'll find some of my observations (taking good points for
> granted, I concentrate on the concerns that Ted Glick didn't discuss
> in his article about the conference "UFPJ Takes Big Leap Forward" @
> <http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=1764>).
>
> * Independent Politics
>
> I concur with Ted Glick on his observation about UFPJ and the
> Democratic Party: "Surprisingly, in my opinion, the body did not
> adopt an amendment which would have added 'participate in the process
> of defeating the Bush agenda' as part of that main goal. This
> happened, apparently, for two reasons: concern from some non-profit
> UFPJ member groups about this being a potential legal problem for
> them, and concern from others that this statement would be
> interpreted as pro-Democratic Party" ("UFPJ Takes Big Leap Forward,"
> <http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=1764>). It is a
> hopeful sign that the conference was not dominated by a contingent
> who wanted the rest of us to devote most of our time to electing
> Democrats to defeat "the Bush agenda." Presentations by the
> advocates of independent politics at the workshop for electoral
> politics were lackluster, however, indicative of the weak positions
> of supporters of Third-Party campaigns (e.g., the Greens have yet to
> find an appropriate presidential candidate). It remains to be seen
> what character UFPJ actions around the Republican and Democratic
> Party conventions and other election-centered campaigns (see #3 at
> <http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=1755>) will assume.
>
> * People of Color, Israel and Palestinians, Etc.
>
> It is great that 51.5% of the newly elected UFPJ steering committee
> are people of color. Affirmative action works! What's not so great
> is that people of color were only a tiny minority of all delegates to
> the conference. Hotel rooms were paid by UFPJ for delegates who
> shared rooms, but travel expenses must have been, as always,
> obstacles for low-income organizers (not to mention time off from
> work, child care arrangements, etc.). Aside from the costs of
> attending the conference (not all of which UFPJ could possibly
> defray), there is a question: what special efforts did the conference
> organizers make to increase the participation of people of color? It
> appeared that there were few organizers of Arab descent, few
> organizers of Muslim heritage, and few black organizers at the
> conference. Were Al-Awda, the Muslim Students' Association, various
> Arab-American organizations, student groups working on divestment
> from Israel, etc. specifically invited to send delegates to the
> conference? What of local organizations whose members are
> predominantly black? Were they not personally invited? Or they were
> invited but couldn't or didn't want to come? The demographics of the
> delegates did, I think, have an impact on the overall political
> atmosphere of the conference. For instance, immigrant delegates and
> delegates of color kept saying that repression didn't start with the
> USA Patriot Act, that even most of the post-911 political arrests,
> detentions, and deportations were made under the criminal and
> immigration laws and regulations that predate the USA Patriot Act,
> etc., but somehow the number one UFPJ campaign priority became
> fighting against the USA Patriot Act: "Specific actions for
> consideration include supporting the on-going work for Civil Liberty
> Safe Cities, to repeal and defeat Patriot Acts I and II as well as
> the Bill of Rights action proposal from IPS [Institute for Policy
> Studies] (section 2 of IPS)" (see
> <http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=1755> and
> <http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=1734#ips>) -- not a
> very promising approach if one of the main goals of the campaign is
> to appeal to and mobilize more people of color. The paucity of Arab,
> Muslim, and/or black delegates, in my opinion, also had an impact on
> the discussion of Israel and Palestinians or lack thereof.
>
> The people of color caucus met twice during the conference, but, due
> to the packed schedule of the conference, the caucus meetings were
> inconveniently scheduled (the first meeting of the caucus took place
> after all other officially scheduled events on the first day, very
> late at night), with little time for work. Nevertheless, the people
> of color caucus managed to craft and submit two amendments to the
> unity statement (the unity statement is posted at
> <http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=1737>): one
> (brainstormed and drafted by Rania Masri and Yoshie Furuhashi) to
> clarify the Israeli-occupied territories, to affirm the importance of
> the Palestinians' right of return, and to steer the focus of the
> unity statement away from the Bush administration in particular and
> onto the US government in general; the other (drafted by Saulo Colon
> of the Vieques Support Campaign) to include clear and concrete
> anti-imperialist demands in the unity statement (the former was also
> approved by the Palestine caucus). Amendments to the unity statement
> were to be discussed on the last day of the conference, but the
> organizers clearly wished not to have them debated on the floor, as
> they presented the choice to discuss the amendments as the dead last
> of the five choices (the other four being all choices to avoid
> discussing them). Most of the (mostly white) delegates -- in part
> taking the cue from the conference organizers, in part expressing
> their own impatience at the slow pace of the conference (things went
> behind the schedule on both the first and the second day), and in
> part not knowing what signal their vote would really send --
> overwhelmingly voted to adopt the draft unity statement as "work in
> progress," as Ted Glick reported. The reason I feel that more than a
> simple concern about time may have motivated the conference
> organizers to encourage the delegates not to discuss the unity
> statement at the conference at all is that there were much anxieties
> in the air as soon as some folks got the wind of a proposal for an
> amendment that includes the mention of the Palestinian refugees'
> right of return (I was approached by several nervous individuals
> wishing to see the proposed amendment before it got submitted).
> Whatever the case may be, the fact remains that, while amendments to
> the strategic framework, an alternative proposal for the UFPJ
> structure, and amendments to the UFPJ structure -- all submitted by
> _individuals_ -- were discussed at length, the ones proposed by the
> people of color _caucus_ merited no discussion time. Thus it turned
> out that the people of color and Palestine caucuses met mostly in
> vain (though we did get to network a little, discuss nominations for
> the steering committee briefly [at the people of color caucus], and
> debate pros and cons of some proposals [at the Palestine caucus] --
> we didn't have enough time to discuss medium- to long-term strategic
> concerns). Apparent "unity" was achieved at the cost of not
> listening to the voice of the people of color caucus and not having a
> potentially controversial question deliberated collectively.
>
> UFPJ _will_ conduct a campaign for "Justice for Palestine" (though,
> as Ted Glick wrote, the idea didn't get as much support as campaigns
> to fight against the USA Patriot Act and to defend civil liberties
> and immigrant rights, an effort to link UFPJ with the global justice
> movement [especially mobilizations around the Sept. 10-13 WTO meeting
> in Cancun], a campaign "to progressively impact the 2004 election and
> key policies"): "UFPJ will initiate a campaign for justice in
> Palestine, with another International Day of Action as a focus, which
> will build on the success of June 5 and may include coordinated local
> actions in many countries, including Israel and Palestine. An
> educational and outreach program will build toward the actions,
> including a speaking tour that may include Palestinians and returning
> members of the International Solidarity Movement. Longterm campaign
> may include divestment campaigns, support for SUSTAIN'S focus on
> Caterpillar tractor, and other strategies. A working group will be
> convened to find a date and craft a message that will assure broad
> participation and sensitivity to both the Palestinian and Jewish
> communities" (see #4 at
> <http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=1755>). (In "many
> countries, including Israel and Palestine" -- an expression that
> explains why the right of return couldn't be discussed at the
> conference...but let's move onto the topic of tactics.) Aside from a
> proposed International Day of Action, it is not clear what UFPJ will
> do except support what's already happening: ISM activist speaking
> tours, SUSTAIN's Cat campaign, and divestment campaigns. Moreover,
> what does it mean to "build on the success of June 5"? I suppose
> "June 5" refers to the call for "the International Day of Action for
> Justice in Palestine" described at
> <http://www.starhawk.org/activism/activism-writings/PalestineAction_June5.html
> >.
> I don't think that this call got very far, much less fostered "broad
> participation"; nor have I seen any media coverage of "June 5"
> (despite my Google & Lexis-Nexis searches). I suggest that the next
> International Day of Action be built up in a way different than "June
> 5" was.
>
> "[S]ensitivity to both the Palestinian and Jewish communities" may
> sound laudable, but what will it translate in practice? During the
> discussion about whether or not to endorse the ANSWER-sponsored
> "Global Day of Protest against Occupation and Empire" on September 27
> (the third anniversary of the beginning of the second Intifada), some
> objected to the idea because the date also falls on the beginning of
> Rosh Hashanah. I thought that objections were reasonable until I
> heard one man expressing his view that it is a matter of "Jewish
> self-determination" (!!!) not to support a protest against Israeli
> occupation on Rosh Hashanah (no one booed him, though the remark did
> raise some eyebrows). Now, it may or may not be a good idea to have
> a protest on a Jewish high holy day. At the very least, it sure
> would discourage participation of observant Jews. It may also
> influence how the media would frame the coverage of the protest.
> Such pragmatic questions are valid, however you answer them. In
> contrast, bringing up an idea of "Jewish self-determination" in this
> context (i.e. discussing when to protest the Israeli occupation!!!)
> indicates a deep political confusion, the confusion that the
> conference failed to clarify due to its avoidance of any difficult
> question. A black woman eventually spoke up to counter the
> objections, saying (I paraphrase from memory) that if Israel can take
> away land from Palestinians on any Muslim holy day, Palestinians can
> try to take it back on any Jewish holy day (or something to that
> effect). For her effort, she got screamed at by a white man.
>
> * ANSWER
>
> Some people's objections to "the Global Day of Protest against
> Occupation and Empire" on September 27 stemmed from their antipathy
> to ANSWER. At the Palestinian caucus, I even heard one man say that
> ANSWER is anti-Semitic because of some of the speakers that it chose
> for its rallies (his remark didn't get more concrete than this).
> Feelings about ANSWER and stances toward Israel and Palestinians
> appeared to be intertwined in the minds of some delegates, though the
> nexus between them remained largely a subtext at the conference.
> Frank discussion would have been welcome (though I'm sure it would
> have been time-consuming, some activities at the conference that
> ended up mainly busy work -- e.g., the speakers on "The Bush
> Administration's Permanent War Agenda at Home and Abroad,"
> small-group discussion about "Assessing Our Movement," and "Workshops
> on Challenges Facing the Movement" on the first day -- could have
> been profitably replaced by more political discussion at caucuses and
> plenaries). That said, the conference did vote to mandate the
> incoming steering committee to create a standing liaison committee to
> work out inter-coalition relations with major national coalitions
> (ANSWER, Win Without War, Racial Justice 9-11, the National Network
> to End the War Against Iraq), as proposed by Michael Letwin of New
> York City Labor Against War (he had tried to set up such a liaison
> committee long before this conference, but his idea finally got put
> into effect). It will be up to the newly elected steering committee
> (at least a third of whose members are likely to be strong voices for
> politics independent of the Democratic Party), via the aforementioned
> liaison committee, to work in a non-sectarian fashion with ANSWER and
> other coalitions to plan a big and feisty International Day of Action
> against the occupations and other joint actions.
>
> * Youth & LGBT
>
> Not too many young persons attended the conference (it's hard to
> evaluate the demographics in terms of sexual orientation). The
> majority of delegates appeared to be above 30 years old. In this
> case, affirmative action couldn't remedy the problem on the spot.
> 11.5% of those elected to the steering committee were youth and 11.5%
> are LGBT, whereas the targets were 20% youth and 15% LGBT. As Ted
> Glick mentioned, however, there is a provision for adding more
> individuals to the steering committee to meet the targets and/or to
> include representatives of important organizations that decide to
> join UFPJ after the conference.
>
> * Disabled
>
> I talked with a genderqueer woman from Buffalo who uses a cane about
> accommodations for the disabled. Here, I report the concerns that
> she mentioned. Some meals were provided in a buffet style --
> unfriendly to some disabled individuals. The conference volunteers
> didn't seem well informed about how to make room changes convenient
> for the disabled (e.g., being unable to answer where the closest
> elevator is). On the second day of the conference, we had to move
> from Holiday Inn (where the entire conference was originally
> scheduled to take place) to Westin, for the plenary for discussion of
> the UFPJ structure. For an able-bodied person, the 10-minute walk
> between the hotels presented no difficulty, but, for some disabled
> individuals, the distance meant walking for more than 30 minutes.
> The genderqueer woman ended up taking a cab on the way back to
> Holiday Inn. She told me that she had contacted UFPJ before the
> conference to express suggestions about how to make the conference
> accessible to the disabled, but her suggestions were not incorporated
> into it.
>
> In conclusion, I wish to emphasize that what I wrote above is not
> meant to discourage anyone from taking part in UFPJ. The opposite is
> the case. I strongly encourage all anti-imperialists -- especially
> those whose activism is focused on the question of Palestine -- to
> actively participate in UFPJ. You can take for granted that ANSWER
> will try to organize strong mass mobilizations against the Israeli
> occupation, without hesitating to affirm the Palestinian refugees'
> right of return. You can't take for granted that UFPJ -- a coalition
> more representative of the wide range of opinions about Israel,
> Palestinians, and US imperialism found among left-of-center activists
> in the USA -- will do so, so your voice needs to be heard.
>
> Postscript:
>
> Here's the text of one of the proposed amendments to the unity
> statement submitted by the people of color caucus that didn't get
> discussed at the conference:
>
> ***** (1) In the paragraph beginning with "U.S. military
> involvement is on the rise in Latin America...," change the following
> sentence from: "U.S. political, economic, and military aid is fueling
> Israel's rise as an unchallengeable regional military power and
> sustains Israel's illegal occupation of the Palestinian West Bank,
> Gaza, and East Jerusalem, and its denial of equal rights to
> Palestinians."
>
> To:
>
> "U.S. political, economic, and military aid is fueling Israel's rise
> as an unchallengeable regional military power and sustains Israel's
> illegal occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, Gaza, and East
> Jerusalem, the Golan Heights of Syria, and the Cheba'a Farms of
> Lebanon, and Israel's denial of equal rights to Palestinians."
>
> (2) Add the following two sentences at the end of the same paragraph:
>
> "We support and recognize the need for equal and secular rights to
> all citizens and residents in Israel, regardless of religious
> affiliation. Any peace process must recognize that the right of
> return for the 6.5 million Palestinian refugees cannot be separated
> from the struggle for justice and peace."
>
> (3) Change all references from the "Bush administration" to the "Bush
> administration and the U.S. government." *****
> --
> Yoshie
>
> * Calendars of Events in Columbus:
> <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html>,
> <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/>
> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/>
> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/>
> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio>
> * Solidarity: <http://solidarity.igc.org/>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk