--- Bryan Atinsky <bryan at alt-info.org> wrote:
>
> If you don't know, the US Green Party has called for
> divestment from
> Israel. For the Green Party press release:
> http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2005_11_28.shtml
>
> The Green Party has been under attack from many
> sides since their
> statement. (for instance:
>
http://www.jewishchronicle.org/issues/current/oped_opinions.htm
> )
>
> Last week Pe'er Visner, Chairman of the Israeli
> Greens, little more than
> a one man party with little connection to the
> environmental movement in
> Israel, wrote a hysterical letter in critique of the
> US Greens call for
> divestment.
> (http://www.green-party.org.il/public_statement.htm)
>
> Now, Rabbi Michael Lerner uses the tried and true
> (well actually false
> in this case) Antisemitism card against the US Green
> Party:
>
>
> I think the Greens have made a big strategic as well
> as moral mistake.
> What Israel is doing is a violation of human rights
> and a big sin. But
> it is not in the same league with the sins of many
> other nations, first
> and foremost the U.S. If the Greens were calling for
> divestment from the
> U.S., Russia (because of Chechnya), China (because
> of Tibet), and Sudan
> (because of Darfur) then adding Israel to that list
> would be appropriate
> and I'd support such a multi-focused divestment. But
> to single out
> Israel, while not calling for divestment from U.S.
> corporations that
> make possible the far more bloody occupation of
> Iraq, is a double
> standard that smacks of traditional anti-Semitism.
>
> Rabbi Michael Lerner
> editor, Tikkun
> RabbiLerner at tikkun.org
>
>
> ------------
>
>
> I am not a member of the US Green Party, I don't
> live in the US and I
> don't know what or if I would vote for if I did live
> in the US, but I
> definitely support their call. And this is
> definitely not antisemitism
> and it doesn't even smack close to it. You need to
> deal with each issue,
> depending on the level of direct responsibility, and
> in a way that you
> think will best facilitate change. Moreover, there
> is no other instance
> of occupation outside of the issue of Iraq, in which
> the taxes of the
> American people and the American government are so
> directly involved in
> facilitating, funding, justifying, arming, etc. the
> occupation. The
> American people are more responsible for ending the
> ongoing occupation
> of the Palestinian people and their land because of
> these factors, and
> simply because we know that the US government has
> the power to pressure
> Israel into making these needed changes.
>
> Importantly, I would add that it is BECAUSE the US
> Greens understand
> that Israel has real democratic institutions and
> mechanisms in place,
> promotes itself as a Democracy, cares about its
> international image, and
> wants to be part of the 'West', that a program of
> boycott and divestment
> can work.
>
> Is Rabbi Lerner saying that until you do everything
> everywhere, you
> should do nothing anywhere?
>
> Does Lerner not agree that there are different
> degrees of moral
> responsibility which are related to the anticipated
> consequences of your
> own actions.
>
> Does he not understand that the American people are
> more directly
> responsible for the ongoing occupation of Iraq and
> of Palestine than
> they are over the occupation of Tibet by the
> Chinese? (Perhaps he could
> complain if it wasn't true that the Greens didn't
> include a strong
> anti-Iraq-Occupation platform and didn't call for
> protest, etc., but we
> know that the anti-Iraq War platform is strong in
> the US Greens).
>
> Does he not understand that it was due to US
> pressure, by and large,
> (and also the threat of the ICJ ruling, the growth
> of Israeli
> conscientious objectors, growing talk of
> international boycott, etc)
> that Sharon made the decision to remove the settlers
> and redeploy from
> Gaza, does he not know that it was in direct
> response to US pressure
> that the Israeli government allowed the East
> Jerusalem Palestinians to
> vote in the January Palestinian Legislative Council
> elections?
>
> With that power to facilitate change comes the moral
> obligation to use
> that power for justice. That is not antisemitism,
> if anything, that IS
> an element of Jewish Ethics.
>
> Read this article by Gidon Levy from Ha'aretz,
> showing the potential
> power that the US government has in influencing
> Israeli policies and
> actions.
>
> It therefore also points to the importance of a
> strong US grassroots
> anti-Occupation activist base that will put pressure
> on its own
> government and the government of Israel, to end the
> Occupation and abide
> by international law.
>
> One main tool of this would be a campaign calling
> for divestment,
> boycott and sanction, on the basis of international
> law and the advisory
> opinion of the International Court of Justice.
> ---------------------
>
>
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/670233.html
>
> One little telephone call
>
> By Gideon Levy
>
> Good morning, America. You suddenly woke up and
> decided to pressure
> Israel to allow elections for the Palestinian
> Authority to be held in
> East Jerusalem? How noble of you. And how easy it
> was. One telephone
> call, two at the most, and Defense Minister Shaul
> Mofaz, a real "tough"
> guy, announced that Israeli was unconditionally
> surrendering. For
> months, Israel has been declaring that it absolutely
> opposes elections
> in Jerusalem, and here, with only an American
> telephone call, everything
> suddenly changes. The wolf Mofaz turned into a lamb,
> if not to say a
> chicken. Maybe you will finally understand that if
> you so desire, a
> broom can shoot and Mofaz surrenders; if the
> administration had really
> wanted, the occupation would already be behind us,
> and the Middle East -
> and the world in its wake - would look different.
>
> A dramatic change in this bleeding region, in the
> form of an end to the
> occupation, is only possible now if one of the
> following three
> conditions is met: an especially courageous Israeli
> leadership; another
> round of bloodshed, more terrible than the previous
> one; or a determined
> American administration. The likelihood of a bold
> Israeli leadership
> here seems very faint. The possibility of another
> round of bloodshed is
> very cruel. Thus, the third path remains. The
> problem is that peace in
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com