hope

Seeing Red Over Green’s Israel Policy by Robert David Jaffee, Contributing Writer

Local leaders of the Green Party are working to overturn an anti-Israel resolution that has become official party policy. Resolution 190, which passed in November, calls for a boycott of and divestment from Israel until “the full individual and collective rights of the Palestinian people are realized.” Indicating that they have “lost several party members as a result” of the resolution, the L.A. Green Party’s County Council wrote a formal letter stating that “the issue is far more complex than is captured in the resolution” and referred to the resolution as “divisive.” Resolution 190, which urges all companies, governments and student organizations around the world to boycott and divest from the Jewish state, makes no reference to violence that targets Israeli civilians, such as suicide bombings and rocket attacks. Nor does it take into account, for example, the nuclear threat from Iran or human rights violations in countries hostile to Israel. Resolution 190 was adopted by the Green Party after four weeks of discussion, which culminated in approval by national party delegates in online voting. Leading the effort to denounce and rescind the resolution are Gary Acheatel, a Beverly Hills High graduate who founded Advocates for Israel in Oregon two years ago, and Lorna Salzman, a New Yorker who ran in Green Party primaries as a presidential candidate in 2004. They have disseminated two substitute resolutions that aim to “initiate a broad, open dialogue” involving state committee members and the Israeli Green Party. In a shift of rhetoric, the substitute language removes the onus from Israel and proposes a policy of opposing “U.S. military aid ... to all countries that have a record of violating human rights, including the mistreatment and inequality of women....” The internal conflict over Resolution 190 exposes deep rifts within the party. While the Green Party has long dedicated itself to ecological matters, there is some debate as to whether the party’s platform embraces human rights and peace, especially within the context of foreign policy. When an issue is “far from what is already agreed upon in our national platform,” said Michael Feinstein, former mayor of Santa Monica and co-founder of the Green Party of California, “it is necessary to reach further into the party’s grass roots to ensure that positions taken are truly reflective of our membership.” But Ruth Weill, a member of the Wisconsin Green Party, the source of Resolution 190, said the Green Party has always taken stands on issues of social justice: “We’re the party that’s been trying to end the Iraq War for three years.” Weill, who like Feinstein is Jewish, adds that Resolution 190 is justified because of Israel’s “continued occupation, cutting off of water aquifers, violating tons of international laws.” Supporters of Israel and Israel itself often have been on the defensive because of general hostility toward the nation but also specifically because of opposition to the Israeli presence in territories since the 1967 Six-Day War. In 1975, in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War and the first oil crisis, the United Nations passed a resolution equating Zionism with racism. The United Nations rescinded that resolution in 1991. Some Arab and Muslim-majority nations have long practiced an economic boycott of Israel, but in recent years the idea has gained some traction in the West. Israel has been equated with regimes like apartheid-era South Africa, even as other nations that notably violate human rights, such as North Korea and China, escape similar censure. The Presbyterian Church (USA) two years ago passed an anti-Israel resolution. Other entities have refused to do so. The British University Teachers Union and residents of Somerville, Mass., a suburb of Boston, rejected resolutions that proposed divestment from Israel, according to published reports. Resolution 190 was the brainchild of two Wisconsin Greens, Ben Manski, who is Jewish, and Mohammed Abed, a member of Al-Awda, an Islamic organization that advocates for Palestinians’ right of return. Abed said that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is “comparable in many ways to South African apartheid.” Manski defends the procedures by which Resolution 190 became party policy. He said that there was a “lengthy discussion” over four weeks and then online voting over two weeks. Although only 72 of 126 Green Party national delegates voted on this resolution, it was approved overwhelmingly; 55 supported it, 7 voted against it and 10 abstained. Manski hails the process as “one of the most democratic, deliberative and transparent” of any party. However, the Israeli Green Party, which called Resolution 190 “a breach in trust,” was not consulted during the debate. Most Greens in Los Angeles County were also unaware of the resolution until after it passed, according to local party members interviewed. “The vast majority of active Greens in L.A. County and across California had no idea that this was being debated or voted upon,” said Feinstein, who added that L.A. County has roughly 25,000 registered Greens, which he asserted is more than Wisconsin or any other state except California and New York. At the time of the Kosovo war, said Feinstein, the German Green Party, which is part of the international Green Party, held a national meeting to discuss intervention in that Balkan republic. “Here, we had an e-mail vote,” said Feinstein. It isn’t entirely settled what it would take to rescind the resolution — whether it would require a majority or two-thirds vote. Nor is it clear what form the vote would take. But the critics don’t intend to let the matter go. A series of talking points, circulated by Salzman and Acheatel, argue that Resolution 190 “reflects interference by and manipulation of the [Green Party] by outside special interest groups.” They specifically cite Al-Awda and the American Muslim Association. Of these outside parties, Salzman said, “As far as I’m concerned, they wrote the declaration.” Resolution co-author Abed called this “utter garbage,” adding, “Ben Manski and I wrote it as members of the Green Party,” not as representatives of any other organization.

http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=15893

--

This definitely gives me hope. It also worries me that it's Feinstein pushing it, he's at the front of one of the two major factions within the California party, and is fiercely hated by many. I disagree with his internal party politics, since he seems to care very little about decentralization, and since he is pro-fusion (with democrats), but I'm glad to see this happening, and certainly will support any further effort to overturn Resolution 190. Personal politics regarding Israel aside, this is first alienating many Greens (and there indeed seems to have been a bit of a "Jew flight"), and on the other end, possibly keeping potential Greens from coming into the party.

It's sad and scary that Israel seems to have become a bad word within the party. I myself have kept it fairly quiet, only a few people I trust know. I know someone who has much repect within the other faction of the party, and though is a Zionist, will not talk about it openly for fear of losing support. It's horrible that this needs to happen. I think there are many others like this, if only there was a way we could contact everyone and meet...

Goddamn Jess Ghannam calling Palestine as the touchstone of the left.

my new hero

I have no time to write anything original at this point, since I have a choice voting meeting to be getting to. Though, that reminds me, I oughta write something on that at some point.

Anyway, here's an article found here: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13221673/?GT1=8211

--

TAMPA, Fla. - A federal judge, miffed at the inability of opposing attorneys to agree on even the slightest details of a lawsuit, ordered them to settle their latest dispute with a game of “rock, paper, scissors.”

The argument was over a location to take the sworn statement of a witness in an insurance lawsuit.

In an order signed Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Gregory Presnell scolded both sides and ordered them to meet at a neutral location at 4 p.m. June 30 to play a round of the hand-gesture game often used to settle childhood disputes. If they can’t agree on the neutral location, he said, they’ll play on the steps of the federal courthouse.

The winner gets to choose the location for the witness statement.

“We’re going to have to do it,” said David Pettinato, lead attorney for the plaintiff, Avista Management. “I guess I’d better bone up on ‘rock, paper, scissors’ rules.”

Last year, officials of the auction houses Christie’s and Sotheby’s engaged in the game to decide who would get to sell a $17.8 million collection of art offered by a Japanese electronics company. Christie’s won.

california proposition 82

I was disappointed that proposition 82 was crushed with a 61% no vote. Universal preschool is a huge step towards equality of opportunity. It is largely agreed upon that those years play a major role in how a child will develop. I was lucky, my mother's work paid for my preschool education and I learned to read when I was 3, haven't stopped loving it since. If, however, we weren't able to pay and I had to wait until kindergarten or elementary school to learn, behind much of the rest of the class, I imagine it would be frustrating and I wouldn't enjoy it as much. Then again, I was a stubborn kid...but still! Not to mention, it sets a foundation to learn how to learn, rather than taking the time to adjust once a child reaches school age, and starting off on the wrong foot. This was a small tax on individuals earning more than $200,000, and couples earning more than $400,000. Of course the leaders of the two major parties are rich bastards, and the Dems started selling this idea that the money needs to go to K-12...true, they need money, but this isn't taking the money away...this is a separate, new tax. Voting this down sends the message to legislators that California cares more about the rich keeping their money than education, so good luck getting a new measure out to give K-12 education more money!

upholding Griswold v. Connecticut

According to an email I got from NARAL, today is the 41st anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut, which struck down a ban on birth control. As we speak, lawmakers in 18 states are working on legalizing a pharmacist's choice to deny birth control, setting it apart from other drugs as being one that a woman, even with the consent of a doctor, does not have the full right to choose. Apparently the pharmacist has the right to make this choice for her, if they feel morally superior. As we all know, these are the same people that would love to see abortion criminalized.

If this upsets you as much as it upsets me, take two seconds and go here:
http://prochoiceaction.org/campaign/98_griswold/w3b6d3kra5k36td

IndyBay's demise

IndyBay is now a wasteland. The hidden comments section is GONE. Screw dialogue, they say, lets have diatribes...from one side. What is the point of this, and how is it in the spirit of open publishing, work towards peace, understanding, tolerance, and freedom of informatiom? I haven't the foggiest. The Left of Northern California is now officially deprived of open publishing IndyMedia...SFIMC is controlled by Nessie and only has his stuff, IndyBay is gone, and Santa Cruz...well that's a topic I ought to write more on, some other time. They have shut out Becky Johnson, fabulous journalist and effective activist, because she has written in support of Israel. Listening to their interviews is disgusting...a bunch of self righteous pricks, really, who ask the same question over and over again after being proved irrelevant.

To see the IndyBay Zio-pack (it's a shame this is all anonymous, it would be good fun to have events), we're all at la.indymedia.org...myself, Becky, Tia, Gehrig, Schtarker Yid, and our old friend the Israeli who was autoblocked at IndyBay last year and posts as autoblocked@IndyBay. Nessie and Toady (the one who never makes his own arguement but instead posts links to Allison Weir's website and short slogans like "Zionism is Racism"are joined by blatant anti-Semite Sheepdog (who once said "I hate 95% of Jews and immediately followed it up with "Yeah, I hate 95% of assholes"....nice slip).

anti-Zionist often DOES mean anti-semite

I try not to throw around the term "anti-semitic," and do not assume that all anti-Zionists are anti-semitic. Sure, many of them unfairly focus on Israel, but it's often because of lack of education, or...well, I don't know, but I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. I really think the term is thrown around too much and has started to lose its power.

However, there unfortunately IS a good deal of anti-Zionist propoganda that is anti-Semitic. One example: the website http://www.nowarforisrael.com I first saw it through recommendations on www.indybay.org At first glance, it's just another anti-Israel website. One of those sites that you just about know is run at least partly by anti-semites, but you can't quite pin it on them. Want to know who hosts it? www.davidduke.com That's right, David Duke, full fledged neo nazi.

I really oughta find just how many sites David Duke hosts. Watch, they'll be some IndyMedia on it...maybe SF-IMC, run by Nessie, the "I hate 99% of Jews" guy.

Gun Control

Growing up in the Bay Area, I was indoctrinated into following just about every part of the liberal dogma. It was just about impossible to disagree without being called a "facist." One issue that I didn't think about very much was gun control. It seemed very simple, guns=killing=bad. Gun control=no killing=good. Right?

Wrong. As I grew older, I began to realize the flaws in my logic. There were two major components to my change in opinion:

1. Gun control and violent crime
Wrong, very wrong. The people who are determined to use guns for crime are going to get them no matter what...lets just face that fact. With high gun control, law abiding citizens are less likely to own guns, and when they are put in danger by those who have not followed these laws, they are often rendered defenseless.

The immediate aftermath of Hurricaine Katrina opened my eyes even more. I thought, "what if a natural disaster happened where I live?" Would I, like many who were in New Orleans, have food and necessary supplies stolen at gunpoint? How would I be able to defend myself and my family? If I were in San Francisco (which will likely be hit by an earthquake of enormous magnitude in the next 25 years), given the recent gun ban, I would be up shit's creek without a paddle.

2. Bill of Rights
I'm scared of the Bill of Rights being muddled in ANY way whatsoever. The second that the Second Amendment is messed with on a federal level, politicians are able to justify taking away other civil liberties (ie in the Patriot Act, the wire tapping scandal).

Also, we must look at the reason that the Second Amendment was written...these were those who fought in the Revolutionary War, and who experienced firsthand the consequences of not being able to defend oneself against the government. If our government does take an extreme turn for the worst, and we find the need to oust it, we'd likely need weapons. At this point, I'd only advocate reform of the existing system, but hey, who can truly predict the future?

gay marriage

For my first issue, I figured I'd give myself an easy one. So here it is: gay marriage. Why's it so easy? Because it's so goddamned straightforward, if you actual care about equal rights, there's no way to justify not allowing gay marriage.

The counterarguements:

1. public opinion
Who gives a shit about public opinion when we're talking about a basic civil liberty? For quite awhile, public opinion was against interracial marriage, as well. I don't care what gives people the heebie jeebies, they're discriminatory heebie jeebies, and they must not interfere with the rights of others. Anyway, this country is not based on mob rule...given the average intelligence of Americans, we'd be screwed.

2. "marriage is between a man and a woman..."
The only "proof" for that is religious, and I heard about this nifty thing...I think they call it separation of church and state. Once again, I will not fall for the heebie jeebies craze.

3. "sactity of marriage..."
Britney Spears had a what...24, maybe 48 hour marriage. If that's not a threat to the "sanctity of marriage," I don't know what is.

4. "slippery slope"
Bestiality? Incest? Pedophilia? Consent issues.

5. state rights
I felt the same way at one point...I'm a big fan of state rights, as well, due to my fears of a highly centralized huge government not being able to serve it's citizens well. The constitution does indeed give responsibility of marriage issues to the states. However, this isn't a small issue, it's a basic civil right, just like marriage is...for all citizens of the US. It's an issue of discrimination, and it's an issue where basic definitions need to be changed. Slavery was also argued to be a state issue, as it was legally a property matter at the time. But the US government stepped in and took away this terrible definition, as it needs to in this case. Where does it have the power to this? Well, there's a reason the elastic clause was written...and it absolutely should not be abused, but in an issue regarding discrimination and civil liberties, I would consider it appropriate.

first post

I've been needing an outlet to ramble freely about politics, without the fear of being shunned by a group I work with politically, or censored. I'm supposedly somewhat of a political anomaly: a Green Zionist. As I talk about it more and more, I find that this is not necessarily the case. Many are scared as a Green to come out as being pro-Israel, or as a Zionist to support a party that seems resolved to hate Israel. There's also the problem of the classic Jewish democrat, often quite progressive, but scared to join a third party. I hope that my generation will be more gutsy, especially after seeing the betrayl of the Democratic Party (voting for the war, not standing behind immigrants, etc), but it seems that a wave of apathy is spreading. Sure, many say that they are anti-war or pro-choice, but action? I see none. Genuine efforts to stay informed? Not so much. Many of my friends are shocked to hear of that the Democratic Party disagrees with them and 70% of registered democrats on a variety of "hot" issues (death penalty, immigration, etc). Yet they will never change their registration. When pressed, they often respond "but there's nobody in the Green Party, they'll never make a difference" (so register and encourage people to do the same, it can't hurt), "they're spoilers" (why bother voting for a pro-war candidate, and if you're really that scared, just register Green, don't vote Green), "I want to vote in the primary" (this often refers to the presidential primary, and by time it gets to here in California, it's basically decided), or...Israel.

Yeah, it's the last one that gets me. It's a general thing in the left. At rallies and protests in San Francisco, there is often much irrelevant Israel bashing. On IndyMedia sites, Zionists are discounted solely on that one political beliefs, and on sites like IndyBay, we are censored and autoblocked. Whatever happened to tolerance? Whatever happened to defending our Bill of Rights? It's scary. Gary Acheatel of www.advocatesforisrael.org is working on reversing Resolution 190, the GPUS resolution for divestment from Israel. I plan to help him in his efforts. I have met Greens who believe that this resolution is isolating many Greens or people who would be Green, and some who do actually support Israel-- but they're scared to say anything. We need to be loud and proud. I have found that as soon as somebody says that they are pro-gun (for reasons such as not wanting the Bill of Rights messed with, or being prepared to defend our rights to the government by force if needed), many others say, "oh, me too..." I've heard of "Greens for Guns" caucuses being formed. Loud and proud.