Time For A New American Strategy To End the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict from J Street November 23, 2010
In the coming days or weeks, the United States may reach agreement with Israel on an extension of the limited moratorium on settlement construction on the West Bank, and the terms of that extension may be sufficient to bring the Palestinian leadership to the table as well. J Street would welcome the resumption of direct talks, but our interest is less in reaching an agreement to keep talking or over the format of those talks than in finding a route to actually ending the conflict between the parties.
Therefore, we believe it is time for the Obama administration to adopt a bolder, more assertive approach in its efforts to resolve the Middle East conflict. The Administration should focus – with or without resuming direct negotiations and/or a 90-day extension of the moratorium – on delineating an agreed-upon border between the state of Israel and the state-to-be of Palestine, and on establishing security arrangements and that would accompany a two-state deal.
J Street supports long-standing American policy that both parties – Israel and the Palestinians – should comply with all of their internationally-recognized obligations. This includes prior Israeli commitments under the Road Map and other agreements both to stop all new settlement construction over the Green Line and to remove outposts, as well as Palestinian commitments to ensure security and prevent incitement.
However, the time has come for the United States to put forward a proposal to establish a border and security arrangements. With a border established, there will be no further need to negotiate over settlement construction. Both Israel and the Palestinians will be able to build where they please within their borders and not beyond.
Detailed security arrangements are necessary to guarantee a two-state deal and to address the full range of threats it faces (from Iran, from Hezbollah and from within Palestinian lands). Such a security plan will give Israelis the confidence that there is a U.S.-led international commitment to their long-term security as Israel pulls back from control of the territories. Finalizing arrangements on borders and security will then create a positive momentum toward addressing other final status issues.
Even if there is a new 90-day moratorium, it will pass quickly, and the Administration and the parties cannot afford to reach day 89 and suddenly find yet another impasse and crisis. Therefore, we suggest that the United States adopt a “borders and security first” strategy along the following lines:
If there is a resumption of talks, engage the parties in an exercise under American supervision to draw the actual border between the two states based on the following principles:
The borders should create the new Palestinian state on the equivalent of 100 percent of the land beyond the 1967 Green Line with one-to-one land swaps.
The borders should allow for many existing settlements, (which could account for as many as three-quarters of all settlers) to be part of Israel’s future recognized sovereign territory.
The agreement on borders between the states should also address the border within Jerusalem with the exception of the Old City and its very immediate environs.
If the sides are not able to reach agreement on borders within the 90-day period, or if “direct talks” do not in fact resume, the United States should present a proposal to both sides that adheres to the parameters presented above for a yes or no decision, with the support of the Quartet and other international stakeholders.
Simultaneously, address and finalize the security arrangements between Israel and a demilitarized future Palestine, and at Palestine’s external international border crossings, allowing for the deployment of an international force to guarantee the agreed provisions. The US should take this occasion to reiterate its commitment to guaranteeing the long-term security of Israel.
Once the border and security arrangements are agreed and in accordance with an agreed-upon timetable, Israel will withdraw from all of the territories designated for the Palestinian state and all other provisions will be implemented.
In parallel with implementation of the border/security arrangements, negotiations will then continue (or resume) on all other outstanding final status issues.
We also suggest that the Obama administration expressly take note of the Arab League Peace Initiative and urge the Arab League to recognize this new American-led effort as consistent with and responsive to their offer to achieve comprehensive, regional peace. To this end, we suggest opening discussions under US supervision to address the outstanding issues between Israel and Syria with the goal of achieving a comprehensive, regional agreement (including between Israel and Lebanon) that leads to full recognition and acceptance of the state of Israel by the Arab League.
A comprehensive regional deal will significantly reduce Iranian influence and its capacity to act as a spoiler in the region, posing the following choice for the regime in Tehran: either join the consensus for peace and recognition for Israel or be further isolated. The former option will open new horizons for negotiations with Iran while the latter would increase U.S. and regional leverage with Iran as the international community re-dedicates itself to preventing Iranian obstructionism and development of a nuclear weapons capacity.
The parties and outside experts are more than familiar with the options and trade-offs needed to establish a border and with it a viable, contiguous Palestinian state. This proposal puts the key question squarely before both the leadership and people on both sides and asks them to express their political willingness to actually achieve a viable solution – rather than continuing to put the spotlight on talks about talks and the conditions for entering into them.
----------
J Street is the political home of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
New J Street Proposal for Israel/Palestinian Peace
Time For A New American Strategy To End the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict from J Street November 23, 2010
In the coming days or weeks, the United States may reach agreement with Israel on an extension of the limited moratorium on settlement construction on the West Bank, and the terms of that extension may be sufficient to bring the Palestinian leadership to the table as well. J Street would welcome the resumption of direct talks, but our interest is less in reaching an agreement to keep talking or over the format of those talks than in finding a route to actually ending the conflict between the parties.
Therefore, we believe it is time for the Obama administration to adopt a bolder, more assertive approach in its efforts to resolve the Middle East conflict. The Administration should focus – with or without resuming direct negotiations and/or a 90-day extension of the moratorium – on delineating an agreed-upon border between the state of Israel and the state-to-be of Palestine, and on establishing security arrangements and that would accompany a two-state deal.
J Street supports long-standing American policy that both parties – Israel and the Palestinians – should comply with all of their internationally-recognized obligations. This includes prior Israeli commitments under the Road Map and other agreements both to stop all new settlement construction over the Green Line and to remove outposts, as well as Palestinian commitments to ensure security and prevent incitement.
However, the time has come for the United States to put forward a proposal to establish a border and security arrangements. With a border established, there will be no further need to negotiate over settlement construction. Both Israel and the Palestinians will be able to build where they please within their borders and not beyond.
Detailed security arrangements are necessary to guarantee a two-state deal and to address the full range of threats it faces (from Iran, from Hezbollah and from within Palestinian lands). Such a security plan will give Israelis the confidence that there is a U.S.-led international commitment to their long-term security as Israel pulls back from control of the territories. Finalizing arrangements on borders and security will then create a positive momentum toward addressing other final status issues.
Even if there is a new 90-day moratorium, it will pass quickly, and the Administration and the parties cannot afford to reach day 89 and suddenly find yet another impasse and crisis. Therefore, we suggest that the United States adopt a “borders and security first” strategy along the following lines:
If there is a resumption of talks, engage the parties in an exercise under American supervision to draw the actual border between the two states based on the following principles:
The borders should create the new Palestinian state on the equivalent of 100 percent of the land beyond the 1967 Green Line with one-to-one land swaps.
The borders should allow for many existing settlements, (which could account for as many as three-quarters of all settlers) to be part of Israel’s future recognized sovereign territory.
The agreement on borders between the states should also address the border within Jerusalem with the exception of the Old City and its very immediate environs.
If the sides are not able to reach agreement on borders within the 90-day period, or if “direct talks” do not in fact resume, the United States should present a proposal to both sides that adheres to the parameters presented above for a yes or no decision, with the support of the Quartet and other international stakeholders.
Simultaneously, address and finalize the security arrangements between Israel and a demilitarized future Palestine, and at Palestine’s external international border crossings, allowing for the deployment of an international force to guarantee the agreed provisions. The US should take this occasion to reiterate its commitment to guaranteeing the long-term security of Israel.
Once the border and security arrangements are agreed and in accordance with an agreed-upon timetable, Israel will withdraw from all of the territories designated for the Palestinian state and all other provisions will be implemented.
In parallel with implementation of the border/security arrangements, negotiations will then continue (or resume) on all other outstanding final status issues.
We also suggest that the Obama administration expressly take note of the Arab League Peace Initiative and urge the Arab League to recognize this new American-led effort as consistent with and responsive to their offer to achieve comprehensive, regional peace. To this end, we suggest opening discussions under US supervision to address the outstanding issues between Israel and Syria with the goal of achieving a comprehensive, regional agreement (including between Israel and Lebanon) that leads to full recognition and acceptance of the state of Israel by the Arab League.
A comprehensive regional deal will significantly reduce Iranian influence and its capacity to act as a spoiler in the region, posing the following choice for the regime in Tehran: either join the consensus for peace and recognition for Israel or be further isolated. The former option will open new horizons for negotiations with Iran while the latter would increase U.S. and regional leverage with Iran as the international community re-dedicates itself to preventing Iranian obstructionism and development of a nuclear weapons capacity.
The parties and outside experts are more than familiar with the options and trade-offs needed to establish a border and with it a viable, contiguous Palestinian state. This proposal puts the key question squarely before both the leadership and people on both sides and asks them to express their political willingness to actually achieve a viable solution – rather than continuing to put the spotlight on talks about talks and the conditions for entering into them.
----------
J Street is the political home of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement.
In the coming days or weeks, the United States may reach agreement with Israel on an extension of the limited moratorium on settlement construction on the West Bank, and the terms of that extension may be sufficient to bring the Palestinian leadership to the table as well. J Street would welcome the resumption of direct talks, but our interest is less in reaching an agreement to keep talking or over the format of those talks than in finding a route to actually ending the conflict between the parties.
Therefore, we believe it is time for the Obama administration to adopt a bolder, more assertive approach in its efforts to resolve the Middle East conflict. The Administration should focus – with or without resuming direct negotiations and/or a 90-day extension of the moratorium – on delineating an agreed-upon border between the state of Israel and the state-to-be of Palestine, and on establishing security arrangements and that would accompany a two-state deal.
J Street supports long-standing American policy that both parties – Israel and the Palestinians – should comply with all of their internationally-recognized obligations. This includes prior Israeli commitments under the Road Map and other agreements both to stop all new settlement construction over the Green Line and to remove outposts, as well as Palestinian commitments to ensure security and prevent incitement.
However, the time has come for the United States to put forward a proposal to establish a border and security arrangements. With a border established, there will be no further need to negotiate over settlement construction. Both Israel and the Palestinians will be able to build where they please within their borders and not beyond.
Detailed security arrangements are necessary to guarantee a two-state deal and to address the full range of threats it faces (from Iran, from Hezbollah and from within Palestinian lands). Such a security plan will give Israelis the confidence that there is a U.S.-led international commitment to their long-term security as Israel pulls back from control of the territories. Finalizing arrangements on borders and security will then create a positive momentum toward addressing other final status issues.
Even if there is a new 90-day moratorium, it will pass quickly, and the Administration and the parties cannot afford to reach day 89 and suddenly find yet another impasse and crisis. Therefore, we suggest that the United States adopt a “borders and security first” strategy along the following lines:
If there is a resumption of talks, engage the parties in an exercise under American supervision to draw the actual border between the two states based on the following principles:
The borders should create the new Palestinian state on the equivalent of 100 percent of the land beyond the 1967 Green Line with one-to-one land swaps.
The borders should allow for many existing settlements, (which could account for as many as three-quarters of all settlers) to be part of Israel’s future recognized sovereign territory.
The agreement on borders between the states should also address the border within Jerusalem with the exception of the Old City and its very immediate environs.
If the sides are not able to reach agreement on borders within the 90-day period, or if “direct talks” do not in fact resume, the United States should present a proposal to both sides that adheres to the parameters presented above for a yes or no decision, with the support of the Quartet and other international stakeholders.
Simultaneously, address and finalize the security arrangements between Israel and a demilitarized future Palestine, and at Palestine’s external international border crossings, allowing for the deployment of an international force to guarantee the agreed provisions. The US should take this occasion to reiterate its commitment to guaranteeing the long-term security of Israel.
Once the border and security arrangements are agreed and in accordance with an agreed-upon timetable, Israel will withdraw from all of the territories designated for the Palestinian state and all other provisions will be implemented.
In parallel with implementation of the border/security arrangements, negotiations will then continue (or resume) on all other outstanding final status issues.
We also suggest that the Obama administration expressly take note of the Arab League Peace Initiative and urge the Arab League to recognize this new American-led effort as consistent with and responsive to their offer to achieve comprehensive, regional peace. To this end, we suggest opening discussions under US supervision to address the outstanding issues between Israel and Syria with the goal of achieving a comprehensive, regional agreement (including between Israel and Lebanon) that leads to full recognition and acceptance of the state of Israel by the Arab League.
A comprehensive regional deal will significantly reduce Iranian influence and its capacity to act as a spoiler in the region, posing the following choice for the regime in Tehran: either join the consensus for peace and recognition for Israel or be further isolated. The former option will open new horizons for negotiations with Iran while the latter would increase U.S. and regional leverage with Iran as the international community re-dedicates itself to preventing Iranian obstructionism and development of a nuclear weapons capacity.
The parties and outside experts are more than familiar with the options and trade-offs needed to establish a border and with it a viable, contiguous Palestinian state. This proposal puts the key question squarely before both the leadership and people on both sides and asks them to express their political willingness to actually achieve a viable solution – rather than continuing to put the spotlight on talks about talks and the conditions for entering into them.
----------
J Street is the political home of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement.
Monday, November 22, 2010
UN USA Magazine The Independent
The InterDependent:
Providing the Best Coverage on the UN
The Interdependent magazine, an online publication of the United Nations Association of the USA (www.theinterdependent.com), offers original reporting on issues related to the United Nations. Recent articles include Barbara Crossette on Iran’s failure to gain a coveted spot on the board of the new UN Women agency; the cholera epidemic in Haiti; and an interview with UN Women’s new chief, Michelle Bachelet.
Mark Turner, a former African and UN correspondent for the Financial Times, reviews a controversial new book on the vagaries of humanitarian aid, “The Crisis Caravan,” by Linda Polman. In Views, Anwarul K. Chowdhury, former UN under secretary-general and high representative, laments the status of the Security Council resolution to protect women in conflict in “When Will Progress Really Be Made for 1325?”
Readers also learn about Unesco’s latest list of intangible cultural assets – French food, geoparks, Croatian singing, among others; what it means to be a UN volunteer; the growing spread of slavery; Guinea’s struggle to carry out its first fair presidential election; the wariness between the UN and the Group of 20; how the US fared in its first peer review at the Human Rights Council; and blog posts on the International Criminal Court.
Since its founding in 1973, The Interdependent, now solely online, has provided news and features on the UN written by top reporters and essayists, the only publication in the world to cover the world body comprehensively and objectively.
To read The ID, go to www.theinterdependent.com, and while you’re there, become a member of UNA-USA, a new program of the United Nations Foundation.
Sincerely,
Ed Elmendorf
Executive Director, UNA-USA
United Nations Association of the United States of America
801 Second Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Email: publications@unausa.org | Tel: 212 907-1300
Providing the Best Coverage on the UN
The Interdependent magazine, an online publication of the United Nations Association of the USA (www.theinterdependent.com), offers original reporting on issues related to the United Nations. Recent articles include Barbara Crossette on Iran’s failure to gain a coveted spot on the board of the new UN Women agency; the cholera epidemic in Haiti; and an interview with UN Women’s new chief, Michelle Bachelet.
Mark Turner, a former African and UN correspondent for the Financial Times, reviews a controversial new book on the vagaries of humanitarian aid, “The Crisis Caravan,” by Linda Polman. In Views, Anwarul K. Chowdhury, former UN under secretary-general and high representative, laments the status of the Security Council resolution to protect women in conflict in “When Will Progress Really Be Made for 1325?”
Readers also learn about Unesco’s latest list of intangible cultural assets – French food, geoparks, Croatian singing, among others; what it means to be a UN volunteer; the growing spread of slavery; Guinea’s struggle to carry out its first fair presidential election; the wariness between the UN and the Group of 20; how the US fared in its first peer review at the Human Rights Council; and blog posts on the International Criminal Court.
Since its founding in 1973, The Interdependent, now solely online, has provided news and features on the UN written by top reporters and essayists, the only publication in the world to cover the world body comprehensively and objectively.
To read The ID, go to www.theinterdependent.com, and while you’re there, become a member of UNA-USA, a new program of the United Nations Foundation.
Sincerely,
Ed Elmendorf
Executive Director, UNA-USA
United Nations Association of the United States of America
801 Second Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Email: publications@unausa.org | Tel: 212 907-1300
Rev. Dave on Wage Theft
Wage Theft Vigil
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Dickson Street at the Railroad Track
Fayetteville, Arkansas
Forty-six years ago, back in the fall of 1964, I was in my first year of law
school. One of the required courses – all the first year courses were required – one
of the required courses was Contracts. We read case after case presenting unusual
or unexpected situations, where the dispute could be resolved only by a court; the
parties could not reach an agreement on their own.
Did I mention that we just had a new roof put on our house?
What we didn’t study in that course on Contracts were the easy cases. A
man agrees to work for a roofing company, for $10 an hour, to be paid at the end
of each week. The man works five eight-hour days. At the end of the week he
expects to receive $400. Of course, he realizes there are deductions for Social
Security and so on. Without offering any excuses at all, the owner – I’m making
this up; this is not my roofer – refuses to pay him.....
From the law student’s point of view, that would be an easy case. From the worker’s point of view, it’s a mostdifficult case. He can’t pay the rent; he can’t buy the groceries.The right to be paid for one’s work, to be paid the agreed-upon wage, is so
basic, so obvious, that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn’t
explicitly mention it. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration talks about a right to
work, about equal pay for equal work, about a right to remuneration that will
ensure worker and family “an existence worthy of human dignity,” but the
underlying simple right to be paid for one’s labor isn’t mentioned. It didn’t have
to be. No one would dispute it.
When Jesus talks about paying workers, he doesn’t tell us about the
vineyard owner who refuses to pay his workers. No, he talks about the vineyard
owner who pays them too much. He pays the workers who worked the full day the
standard wage for a full day’s work. But then he pays those who worked just the
last few hours of the day the same amount. Unfair, the full-day workers complain.
And we would probably agree that the arrangement is unfair. But the vineyard
owner didn’t stiff any of the workers. Everyone was paid. [Matt. 20:1-16]
So I don’t get it. I don’t understand how anyone could hire a worker; the
worker does the job; and then the boss refuses to pay them. I don’t suppose that
someone who would behave like that would be transformed by my quoting the
Bible to them.
I’m sure they’ve heard of the Ten Commandments. They probably couldn’t
name them all – I don’t think I could myself – but I have no doubt that they would
recognize “Thou shalt not steal” as one of them. What could be plainer than that?
Rev. Dave Hunter
Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Fayetteville
479-444-8168
dhhunter@sbcglobal.net
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Dickson Street at the Railroad Track
Fayetteville, Arkansas
Forty-six years ago, back in the fall of 1964, I was in my first year of law
school. One of the required courses – all the first year courses were required – one
of the required courses was Contracts. We read case after case presenting unusual
or unexpected situations, where the dispute could be resolved only by a court; the
parties could not reach an agreement on their own.
Did I mention that we just had a new roof put on our house?
What we didn’t study in that course on Contracts were the easy cases. A
man agrees to work for a roofing company, for $10 an hour, to be paid at the end
of each week. The man works five eight-hour days. At the end of the week he
expects to receive $400. Of course, he realizes there are deductions for Social
Security and so on. Without offering any excuses at all, the owner – I’m making
this up; this is not my roofer – refuses to pay him.....
From the law student’s point of view, that would be an easy case. From the worker’s point of view, it’s a mostdifficult case. He can’t pay the rent; he can’t buy the groceries.The right to be paid for one’s work, to be paid the agreed-upon wage, is so
basic, so obvious, that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn’t
explicitly mention it. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration talks about a right to
work, about equal pay for equal work, about a right to remuneration that will
ensure worker and family “an existence worthy of human dignity,” but the
underlying simple right to be paid for one’s labor isn’t mentioned. It didn’t have
to be. No one would dispute it.
When Jesus talks about paying workers, he doesn’t tell us about the
vineyard owner who refuses to pay his workers. No, he talks about the vineyard
owner who pays them too much. He pays the workers who worked the full day the
standard wage for a full day’s work. But then he pays those who worked just the
last few hours of the day the same amount. Unfair, the full-day workers complain.
And we would probably agree that the arrangement is unfair. But the vineyard
owner didn’t stiff any of the workers. Everyone was paid. [Matt. 20:1-16]
So I don’t get it. I don’t understand how anyone could hire a worker; the
worker does the job; and then the boss refuses to pay them. I don’t suppose that
someone who would behave like that would be transformed by my quoting the
Bible to them.
I’m sure they’ve heard of the Ten Commandments. They probably couldn’t
name them all – I don’t think I could myself – but I have no doubt that they would
recognize “Thou shalt not steal” as one of them. What could be plainer than that?
Rev. Dave Hunter
Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Fayetteville
479-444-8168
dhhunter@sbcglobal.net
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Thanksgiving Day
OMNI THANKSGIVING DAY NEWSLETTER, NOVEMBER 25, 2010, NATIONAL DAY OF GRATITUDE, MOURNING, AND ATONEMENT by Dick Bennett, for a CULTURE OF PEACE..
For a decade OMNI has promoted the UN concept of Building a Culture of Peace. I have interpreted this goal to include the reconstitution of certain national “Days” (the creation of alternative national "Days"). We have a Julia Ward Howe Mother's Day for Peace, Indigenous People's Day (to replace Columbus Day), Unity Day (Veteran’s Day), for examples, and we celebrate many Days that oppose war and tyranny (UN Day, Human Rights Day, etc.). These are structural changes, not just treating symptoms (such as battered women's sheltesr and homeless rescue, which we need, given the world as it is), but trying to change the countless sources of the US Violence-Corporate -Military State (our National Security State). We have not yet tackled Thanksgiving. What should we do?
One approach is to remember that Thanksgiving Day is a day to remember and give thanks for and with immigrants, and mourn for and with them, and help them. Margaret Regan’s book The Death of Josseline tells the story of a 14-year-old Mexican girl who dies crossing the desert on the U.S.-Mexican border. Regan connects that sad tale with the story of her own great-grandparents, who emigrated from Ireland in 1872 only to die penniless in Philadelphia at the ages of 36 and 34. Thanksgiving should not be a time to only to take a break or celebrate self-indulgence, but to remember the immigrants who risk everything to seek a better life and do not always have a happy life or ending. During Thanksgiving this year ask what is your family’s immigration story. When did your immigrant ancestors’ descendents begin to enjoy a better life, of if they all did.
Another way to Thanksgiving is to try to perceive Thanksgiving from the perspective of Native Americans. What do American Indians think of the immigrants? Check out:
Thanksgiving A Loaded Holiday for Many Native-Americans
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/11/27-1
For some Native Americans and their European-American friends, the idea of
a National Day of Atonement is growing. The idea is to unravel the US superiority complex (US “exceptionalism”) that leads to blindness to our wrongdoings against Native Americans, Many in the general population condemn the genocides committed by the Hutus or Turks, but cannot add the Westward movement across the continent as also genocidal. This cartoon expresses the extreme edge of this point of view. This is such a fundamental overturning of a major US annual self-deception that I cannot hope for its acceptance by more than a handful for a long time to come. (Thanks to Sue Skidmore.).
Why We Shouldn't Celebrate Thanksgiving (sorry, the link would not work)
By Robert Jensen, AlterNet
Thanksgiving Day should be turned into a National Day of Atonement to acknowledge the genocide of America's indigenous peoples. Read more »
Thanksgiving in America (sorry again, the drawing of a family giving thanks at beginning of their Thanksgiving turkey dinner, their table and house resting on the bones of generations of Native Americans, would not copy).
--
Dick Bennett
Wars and Warming: Reducing the Footprints
My blog:
http://jamesrichardbennett.blogspot.com/
jbennet@uark.edu
(479) 442-4600
2582 Jimmie Ave.
Fayetteville, AR 72703
For a decade OMNI has promoted the UN concept of Building a Culture of Peace. I have interpreted this goal to include the reconstitution of certain national “Days” (the creation of alternative national "Days"). We have a Julia Ward Howe Mother's Day for Peace, Indigenous People's Day (to replace Columbus Day), Unity Day (Veteran’s Day), for examples, and we celebrate many Days that oppose war and tyranny (UN Day, Human Rights Day, etc.). These are structural changes, not just treating symptoms (such as battered women's sheltesr and homeless rescue, which we need, given the world as it is), but trying to change the countless sources of the US Violence-Corporate -Military State (our National Security State). We have not yet tackled Thanksgiving. What should we do?
One approach is to remember that Thanksgiving Day is a day to remember and give thanks for and with immigrants, and mourn for and with them, and help them. Margaret Regan’s book The Death of Josseline tells the story of a 14-year-old Mexican girl who dies crossing the desert on the U.S.-Mexican border. Regan connects that sad tale with the story of her own great-grandparents, who emigrated from Ireland in 1872 only to die penniless in Philadelphia at the ages of 36 and 34. Thanksgiving should not be a time to only to take a break or celebrate self-indulgence, but to remember the immigrants who risk everything to seek a better life and do not always have a happy life or ending. During Thanksgiving this year ask what is your family’s immigration story. When did your immigrant ancestors’ descendents begin to enjoy a better life, of if they all did.
Another way to Thanksgiving is to try to perceive Thanksgiving from the perspective of Native Americans. What do American Indians think of the immigrants? Check out:
Thanksgiving A Loaded Holiday for Many Native-Americans
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/11/27-1
For some Native Americans and their European-American friends, the idea of
a National Day of Atonement is growing. The idea is to unravel the US superiority complex (US “exceptionalism”) that leads to blindness to our wrongdoings against Native Americans, Many in the general population condemn the genocides committed by the Hutus or Turks, but cannot add the Westward movement across the continent as also genocidal. This cartoon expresses the extreme edge of this point of view. This is such a fundamental overturning of a major US annual self-deception that I cannot hope for its acceptance by more than a handful for a long time to come. (Thanks to Sue Skidmore.).
Why We Shouldn't Celebrate Thanksgiving (sorry, the link would not work)
By Robert Jensen, AlterNet
Thanksgiving Day should be turned into a National Day of Atonement to acknowledge the genocide of America's indigenous peoples. Read more »
Thanksgiving in America (sorry again, the drawing of a family giving thanks at beginning of their Thanksgiving turkey dinner, their table and house resting on the bones of generations of Native Americans, would not copy).
--
Dick Bennett
Wars and Warming: Reducing the Footprints
My blog:
http://jamesrichardbennett.blogspot.com/
jbennet@uark.edu
(479) 442-4600
2582 Jimmie Ave.
Fayetteville, AR 72703
Afghanistan War
OMNI NEWSLETTER ON AFGHANISTAN and PAKISTAN #7 (see Iraq Newsletters for related materials), November 21, 2010, WE, THE PEOPLE BUILDING A CULTURE OF PEACE, Of, BY, and For the People. Edited by Dick Bennett. (This Newsletter was not sent directly to the members, but was placed in OMNI’s web site and in Dick’s Blog.) (#1 Feb. 18, 2008; #2 Jan. 2009, “25 Reasons for Leaving Afghanistan”; #3 Oct. 4, 2009; #4 April 12, 2010; #5 July 27, 2010; #6 October 8, 2010)
CONTENTS
Four More Years? More? Leaving Afghanistan Ever?
Continue the Demonstrations
Memorial to Civilian Casualties
Consequences of War: Returned Veterans’ Deaths and Suicides
Mainstream Media Support the War
Film on Tillman Coverup
Why are the Majority of the Public Silent?
US MILITARY NOT LEAVING AFGHANISTAN EVEN BY 2014?
NATO, US Differ Over Leaving Afghanistan in 2014
Alan Clendenning and Julie Pace, Associated Press
Excerpt: "Later, a senior Obama administration official said the US had not committed to ending its combat mission in Afghanistan at the end of 2014. The official spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss internal administration discussions." https://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=en&shva=1#inbox/12c6cbe2a0a36866
READ MORE
CONTINUE THE DEMONSTRATIONS TO REMEMBER AND PROTEST THE START OF THE AFGHAN WAR OCTOBER 2001
International Days of Action calling for ceasefire, negotiations, and withdrawal of all US and NATO troops. www.warresisters.org
ART: MEMORIAL TO THE CIVILIAN CASUALTIES OF THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN
More than 40 artists from around the world contributed their vision of war and peace as a memorial to the victims. WINDOWS AND MIRRORS is a traveling exhibit of 45 panels, each 4’ by 6’. To find the site nearest to us contact www.AFSC.org
War’s Hidden Death Toll: After Service, Veteran Deaths & Suicides Surge
As of this month, over 5,700 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. That count does not include those veterans who commit suicide or die from war-related issues after returning home from military service. Well, a new investigation into California veterans and active service members reveals that three times as many veterans are dying soon after returning home than those being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. According to the report published in the Bay Citizen and the New York Times, more than 1,000 California veterans under 35 died between 2005 and 2008. For more go to: Soldier Suicides
Email to a friend Help Printer-friendly version Purchase DVD/CD
LISTEN
WATCH
Real Video Stream
Real Audio Stream
MP3 Download
More…
Guest: Aaron Glantz, reporter with the Bay Citizen. His article 'After Service, Veteran Deaths Surge' appeared in the New York Times. He is the author of three books, most recently, The War Comes Home: Washington’s Battle against America’s Veterans.
Related stories
• "Operation Recovery": On 9th Anniversary of Afghan War, Veteran-Led Campaign Seeks to End Deployment of Traumatized Soldiers
• With Military Suicides on the Rise, Parents of Two Soldiers Who Took Their Own Lives Say Obama’s Words Ring Hollow
• "I Have No Regret to Anybody in the Military. This Is Clearly a Failure of Our Government"–Iraq War Vet Dan Choi Discharged Under "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell"
PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS AND SUICIDES
“Why Are Troops Killing Themselves?” by Martha Rosenberg, originally on www.dissidentvoice.org (Aug. 3, 2010), reprinted in PublicCitizen Health Letter (September 2010). Examines the link between health and mental health effects of psychoactive drugs--antidepressants, antipsychotics, and antiseizure drugs--and soldier suicides. “Like the Army report, the Juvenile Justice report ignores the pharmaceutical elephant in the room and the tax dollars and human costs of feeding it.”
MAINSTREAM MEDIA
Peter Hart, “Exposes Just Excuses to Boost Afghan War,” Extra! The Magazine of FAIR (Oct. 2010). Corporate media reported the dismissal of Gen. McChrystal and the WikiLeaks release of classified documents. But the revelations “were mostly seen as opportunities to shore up support for the current Afghanistan policy rather than to debate it.”
FILM
“THE TILLMAN STORY.” Rev. Mother Jones (Nov. Dec. 2010). Story of the search for the truth behind Pat’s death in Afghanistan in 2004, which was hushed up far up the chain of command.
WHY DO THE PEOPLE OF THE US ACCEPT PERMANENT WAR? WHY ARE SO MANY SILENT?
One writer suggests they are bored with the wars. “Like a reality show that’s gone on too long, it ceases to shock, shame, or even interest.” (Gary Younge, “Forgetting Afghanistan,” The Nation, Nov. 8, 2010). But can that be, when violence attracts millions to dozens of TV shows? In Afghanistan, Staff Sgt. Calvin Gibbs, full of hatred for the Afghan “savages,” allegedly ordered murder of civilians, and then posed with his fellow soldiers with the corpses. Back in February a raid killed two pregnant women, a teenage girl, and a police commander, all innocent of any crime And just after Christmas last year eight teens and preteens in Kunar province were murdered by execution-style. Plenty of reality there. So the people of the US are bored with war violence but not TV violence? In a September poll, when asked “what the most important problems facing the country are, just 3 percent mentioned Afghanistan.” They are bored? Or do they want to forget that their leaders and they themselves supported the war? A Crusade for Security against the Vicious Muslims! Only one Representative, Barbara Lee, voted against it. And then bin Laden was never arrested. The Afghan killed have been literally countless because so many were never counted, and now US killed have doubled under Obama. So the public are silent because ashamed? Are they? Or because their fundamental commitment to the myth of US war and empire has been shown to be so mistaken? The US is not so perfect that no matter how many crimes it commits against the vulnerable of the world the results will be benign? US leaders and populace rejected alternatives to the horrific brutality of invading and occupying a third-world country, without achieving democracy or security? Barbara Lee was right? If not boredom or shame, why are the majority silent? Dick
END OF AFGHANISTAN NEWSLETTER #7 November 21, 2010
CONTENTS
Four More Years? More? Leaving Afghanistan Ever?
Continue the Demonstrations
Memorial to Civilian Casualties
Consequences of War: Returned Veterans’ Deaths and Suicides
Mainstream Media Support the War
Film on Tillman Coverup
Why are the Majority of the Public Silent?
US MILITARY NOT LEAVING AFGHANISTAN EVEN BY 2014?
NATO, US Differ Over Leaving Afghanistan in 2014
Alan Clendenning and Julie Pace, Associated Press
Excerpt: "Later, a senior Obama administration official said the US had not committed to ending its combat mission in Afghanistan at the end of 2014. The official spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss internal administration discussions." https://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=en&shva=1#inbox/12c6cbe2a0a36866
READ MORE
CONTINUE THE DEMONSTRATIONS TO REMEMBER AND PROTEST THE START OF THE AFGHAN WAR OCTOBER 2001
International Days of Action calling for ceasefire, negotiations, and withdrawal of all US and NATO troops. www.warresisters.org
ART: MEMORIAL TO THE CIVILIAN CASUALTIES OF THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN
More than 40 artists from around the world contributed their vision of war and peace as a memorial to the victims. WINDOWS AND MIRRORS is a traveling exhibit of 45 panels, each 4’ by 6’. To find the site nearest to us contact www.AFSC.org
War’s Hidden Death Toll: After Service, Veteran Deaths & Suicides Surge
As of this month, over 5,700 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. That count does not include those veterans who commit suicide or die from war-related issues after returning home from military service. Well, a new investigation into California veterans and active service members reveals that three times as many veterans are dying soon after returning home than those being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. According to the report published in the Bay Citizen and the New York Times, more than 1,000 California veterans under 35 died between 2005 and 2008. For more go to: Soldier Suicides
Email to a friend Help Printer-friendly version Purchase DVD/CD
LISTEN
WATCH
Real Video Stream
Real Audio Stream
MP3 Download
More…
Guest: Aaron Glantz, reporter with the Bay Citizen. His article 'After Service, Veteran Deaths Surge' appeared in the New York Times. He is the author of three books, most recently, The War Comes Home: Washington’s Battle against America’s Veterans.
Related stories
• "Operation Recovery": On 9th Anniversary of Afghan War, Veteran-Led Campaign Seeks to End Deployment of Traumatized Soldiers
• With Military Suicides on the Rise, Parents of Two Soldiers Who Took Their Own Lives Say Obama’s Words Ring Hollow
• "I Have No Regret to Anybody in the Military. This Is Clearly a Failure of Our Government"–Iraq War Vet Dan Choi Discharged Under "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell"
PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS AND SUICIDES
“Why Are Troops Killing Themselves?” by Martha Rosenberg, originally on www.dissidentvoice.org (Aug. 3, 2010), reprinted in PublicCitizen Health Letter (September 2010). Examines the link between health and mental health effects of psychoactive drugs--antidepressants, antipsychotics, and antiseizure drugs--and soldier suicides. “Like the Army report, the Juvenile Justice report ignores the pharmaceutical elephant in the room and the tax dollars and human costs of feeding it.”
MAINSTREAM MEDIA
Peter Hart, “Exposes Just Excuses to Boost Afghan War,” Extra! The Magazine of FAIR (Oct. 2010). Corporate media reported the dismissal of Gen. McChrystal and the WikiLeaks release of classified documents. But the revelations “were mostly seen as opportunities to shore up support for the current Afghanistan policy rather than to debate it.”
FILM
“THE TILLMAN STORY.” Rev. Mother Jones (Nov. Dec. 2010). Story of the search for the truth behind Pat’s death in Afghanistan in 2004, which was hushed up far up the chain of command.
WHY DO THE PEOPLE OF THE US ACCEPT PERMANENT WAR? WHY ARE SO MANY SILENT?
One writer suggests they are bored with the wars. “Like a reality show that’s gone on too long, it ceases to shock, shame, or even interest.” (Gary Younge, “Forgetting Afghanistan,” The Nation, Nov. 8, 2010). But can that be, when violence attracts millions to dozens of TV shows? In Afghanistan, Staff Sgt. Calvin Gibbs, full of hatred for the Afghan “savages,” allegedly ordered murder of civilians, and then posed with his fellow soldiers with the corpses. Back in February a raid killed two pregnant women, a teenage girl, and a police commander, all innocent of any crime And just after Christmas last year eight teens and preteens in Kunar province were murdered by execution-style. Plenty of reality there. So the people of the US are bored with war violence but not TV violence? In a September poll, when asked “what the most important problems facing the country are, just 3 percent mentioned Afghanistan.” They are bored? Or do they want to forget that their leaders and they themselves supported the war? A Crusade for Security against the Vicious Muslims! Only one Representative, Barbara Lee, voted against it. And then bin Laden was never arrested. The Afghan killed have been literally countless because so many were never counted, and now US killed have doubled under Obama. So the public are silent because ashamed? Are they? Or because their fundamental commitment to the myth of US war and empire has been shown to be so mistaken? The US is not so perfect that no matter how many crimes it commits against the vulnerable of the world the results will be benign? US leaders and populace rejected alternatives to the horrific brutality of invading and occupying a third-world country, without achieving democracy or security? Barbara Lee was right? If not boredom or shame, why are the majority silent? Dick
END OF AFGHANISTAN NEWSLETTER #7 November 21, 2010
Friday, November 19, 2010
Guantanamo versus Rule of Law
GUANTANAMO: US Legal and Moral Descent into Detention without Trial
ANDY WORTHINGTON
Andy Worthington, The Guantanamo Files: Stories from Outside the Law.
From Democracy Now in Dec. 2009
Amy Goodman interviewed Andy Worthington, author of The Guantanamo Files: Stories from Outside the Law. He noted that Gitmo was to be closed by Jan. 11, 2010; that date was extended; and now extended again in order not to release Yemeni prisoners, of which 86 are still in G. Worthington also said that the Pentagon exaggerated the no. of G. released prisoners who rejoined al Qaeda.
REPORTER CAROL ROSENBERG
Glenn, David. “The Record Keeper: Carol Rosenberg Owns the Guantanamo Beat.” Columbia Journalism Rev. (Nov. Dec. 2010). Rosenberg, reporter for The Miami Herald, is the most persistent critic of “the way the military runs things at Guantanamo.” This article describes many of her presence at Gitmo and exposes of Pentagon machinations.
The End of Shame in America
This sort of thing should be shouted from the rooftops, and those responsible chased from public life. But instead we’ll have the grinning loons on cable news and talk radio telling us why it’s okay.
Report: U.S. military based Gitmo training on tactics China used in Korean War - USA Today
A training course at Gitmo was modeled on tactics that Chinese forces used to interrogate American prisoners during the Korean War, according to The New York Times.
The paper reports that interrogation trainers used a chart with "coercive management techniques" that were "copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners."
To read more: http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/07/report-us-milit.html (from Richard D)
PRISONERS
Scott Horton, “The Guantánamo ‘Suicides’: A Camp Delta sergeant blows the whistle,” Harper’s Magazine (Jan/Feb 2010). See: DN 1-19-10 Gitmo in 2006: 3 prisoners murdered, G. commander claimed suicide, gov’t /CIA covered up…….
MOHAMMED JAWAD
TMN (7-31-09), “Judge Orders Detainee’s Release.” The youngest detainee, tortured into confessing to crimes, imprisoned at G. six and a half years.without charge or trial.
Dick
ANDY WORTHINGTON
Andy Worthington, The Guantanamo Files: Stories from Outside the Law.
From Democracy Now in Dec. 2009
Amy Goodman interviewed Andy Worthington, author of The Guantanamo Files: Stories from Outside the Law. He noted that Gitmo was to be closed by Jan. 11, 2010; that date was extended; and now extended again in order not to release Yemeni prisoners, of which 86 are still in G. Worthington also said that the Pentagon exaggerated the no. of G. released prisoners who rejoined al Qaeda.
REPORTER CAROL ROSENBERG
Glenn, David. “The Record Keeper: Carol Rosenberg Owns the Guantanamo Beat.” Columbia Journalism Rev. (Nov. Dec. 2010). Rosenberg, reporter for The Miami Herald, is the most persistent critic of “the way the military runs things at Guantanamo.” This article describes many of her presence at Gitmo and exposes of Pentagon machinations.
The End of Shame in America
This sort of thing should be shouted from the rooftops, and those responsible chased from public life. But instead we’ll have the grinning loons on cable news and talk radio telling us why it’s okay.
Report: U.S. military based Gitmo training on tactics China used in Korean War - USA Today
A training course at Gitmo was modeled on tactics that Chinese forces used to interrogate American prisoners during the Korean War, according to The New York Times.
The paper reports that interrogation trainers used a chart with "coercive management techniques" that were "copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners."
To read more: http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/07/report-us-milit.html (from Richard D)
PRISONERS
Scott Horton, “The Guantánamo ‘Suicides’: A Camp Delta sergeant blows the whistle,” Harper’s Magazine (Jan/Feb 2010). See: DN 1-19-10 Gitmo in 2006: 3 prisoners murdered, G. commander claimed suicide, gov’t /CIA covered up…….
MOHAMMED JAWAD
TMN (7-31-09), “Judge Orders Detainee’s Release.” The youngest detainee, tortured into confessing to crimes, imprisoned at G. six and a half years.without charge or trial.
Dick
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)