 |
| Sami al-Arian (Arab American News) |
"Most Saturdays, a half-dozen to a dozen or more members of Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends hold signs against Israel ("Israel Commits Atrocities"), against U.S. policy ("Stop U.S. Aid to Israel") and against supporters of Israel ("Israel Lobby Inside"). Sometimes they videotape the worshipers as they arrive."
---
Thursday, April 12, 2007
NEWS: Counter-Protest
Non-Jews lead effort to stop Shabbat demonstrations in Ann Arbor.
Don Cohen
Special to the Jewish News
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Ann Arbor
How can a community like ours, that rightly prides itself on being a liberal and respectful one, be silent in the face of this kind of abuse of our Jewish neighbors?"
That is the question that Larry Crockett and others in the recently formed Worship Without Harassment group ask fellow Ann Arborites regarding the picketing of Beth Israel Congregation each Saturday morning for the past three years.
Most Saturdays, a half-dozen to a dozen or more members of Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends hold signs against Israel ("Israel Commits Atrocities"), against U.S. policy ("Stop U.S. Aid to Israel") and against supporters of Israel ("Israel Lobby Inside"). Sometimes they videotape the worshipers as they arrive.
The Ann Arbor City Council, area religious leaders and the Ann Arbor News have condemned the pickets to no avail.
In an opinion piece in the Ann Arbor News in January, Beth Israel's Rabbi Robert Dobrusin said the signs "contain false and hateful statements crafted to be provocative and offensive." As to the protesters' claim that they seek dialogue and their demand for a synagogue-hosted platform to present their views, Rabbi Dobrusin wrote that the Shabbat protests "are disrespectful, intrusive, insensitive and counter-productive to any true dialogue on this subject in this community."
Crockett, a member of First Unitarian Universalist Church of Ann Arbor, has observed the picketing a few times and found it "disgusting," saying there are proper forums and venues to demonstrate about political issues. He also suspects that Jews are being singled out in a way that other religious groups wouldn't be, and that beyond political differences anti-Semitism is likely at play.
"I think if it had happened at a mainline church, it would have been over in a month; someone would have found a way to stop it," he says.
An answer on the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page on the group's Web site also addresses the issue of anti-Semitism: "When Jews - and only Jews - are subjected to this kind of behavior, then what might the appropriate term to describe that be?" it says.
Crockett urges friends of the Jewish community to show support by signing an online petition, sending letters of support to the congregation and speaking out at their own religious institutions in support of Beth Israel and against protests at houses of worship. To contact the group, or sign the online petition, which had 328 signators at last count, visit the Web site
www.worshipwithoutharassment.org.
In July 2005, some Beth Israel congregants formed SPURN (Synagogue Protest Unacceptable! Respond Now) to encourage donations to the American Friends of Magen David Adom, supporters of Israel's emergency medical service, as a positive response to the protests. To date, it has raised just under $85,000. See
www.aaspurn.org for information.
Subterranean soapbox Anti-`occupation’ ads coming to Metro stations
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is about to go underground– into the Washington subway system, to be exact.
Beginning May 13, some 20 downtown Metro stations will be emblazoned with posters advertising a June 10 rally and march in Washington protesting “Israel’s illegal military occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.”
The event, which will be held on the west lawn of the Capitol, is being organized by the District-based U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, which claims 250 member organizations around the country.
“If past events organized by this organization are any indication, it will make no attempt to present a balanced view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and this ad is a pure reflection of that,” said Oren Segal, a spokesperson for the Anti-Defamation League.
The U.S. Campaign’s effort to publicize the rally ran into an early roadblock that escalated into a minor freedom of speech face-off that eventually involved the American Civil Liberties Union.
The saga began unfolding when the U.S. Campaign approached CBS Outdoor, the New York-based company that handles in-station advertising for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. A CBS Outdoor account executive refused to place the organization’s ad, claiming in a March 9 e-mail that it was “too offensive to be displayed in a public place,” according to Arthur Spitzer, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area.
Jodi Senese, CBS Outdoor’s executive vice president in charge of marketing, rejected the ad, saying it appeared to violate company policy. “The ad,” she explained in an interview, “included a picture that I felt was inflammatory and was exploitative of children.”
Senese said the ad was not turned down because of its political stance. “I’m Jewish,” she added, “and I didn’t want to be seen as making a political statement.”
The ad is dominated by a photograph of a child who is facing a giant tank that looms menacingly in the near distance. The accompanying text reads in part: “Imagine if this were your child’s daily path to school. Palestinians don’t have to imagine.” In larger, bold letters, it also reads: “The World Says No to Israeli Occupation!”
Within days of being turned down, a U.S. Campaign official contacted Spitzer, who then set out to touch base with a lawyer he knows in the WMATA legal office, who, as Spitzer put it, “understands the First Amendment and can help solve this with a call.”
The issue was indeed solved with a single nonthreatening call, and a confirming e-mail. CBS Outdoor has been instructed by WMATA to place the ad as per its contract with the U.S. Campaign, and the company has not objected, according to Spitzer. WMATA spokesperson Joanne Ferreira said only: “We didn’t have any problem with the ad. It was a First Amendment issue.”
The 46-by-60-inch ads (one per designated station) will appear for one month, according to a U.S. Campaign spokesperson who declined to comment when asked how much the advertising campaign costs.
Spitzer said this case is not precedent-setting. Over the years, several highly politicized ads have run in the Metro system, espousing positions spanning the political spectrum. In some cases, the ACLU has gone to court to fend off those who sought to remove them.
Spitzer, who is Jewish, was asked if he had any compunctions about defending the rights of an organization that is publicly and harshly criticizing Israel. “This is not a case about Judaism or Israel,” he said, “but about establishing someone’s right to freedom of speech, which I agree with regardless of whether I agree with their particular political position.”
Last updated March 27, 2007 5:39 p.m. PT
The fairy-tale view of Israel as eternally besieged and completely faultless in its conflict with the Palestinians, as presented by David Brumer in the March 18 Focus ("Play shines light on conflict"), has certainly taken a hit this past year.
A growing number of Americans who deeply sympathize with Israel, including former President Jimmy Carter, have spoken eloquently of the need to recognize that Israel has committed severe human rights violations against the Palestinian people through its nearly 40-year military occupation and theft of Palestinian land for Israeli settlements. While extremely critical of Palestinian terrorism, they conclude that peace with security is not possible until Israel ends the injustices.
Perhaps that is why Israel's more fervent apologists are resorting to distortion and defamation as their preferred method to discredit anyone who dares acknowledge Palestinian grievances or Israel's grave and well-documented human rights abuses. Carter is facing an onslaught of malicious charges that range from intentionally lying to anti-Semitism. They want to silence an emerging debate over the United States' one-sided embrace of Israel.
This method of attacking the messenger is clearly on display in Brumer's article as well as in the flurry of protest against the play "My Name is Rachel Corrie" at the Seattle Repertory Theatre. The play tells the story of the 23-year-old woman from Olympia crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer demolishing Palestinian homes in the Gaza Strip.
Instead of joining with Carter, Rachel Corrie and countless others, many Israeli and Jewish, who recognize Israel's occupation and settlements are unjustified and prevent peace, Brumer peddles defamation and falsehoods about Corrie masquerading as reasonable criticism.
Claiming that Corrie was even "unwittingly" supporting terrorists is contradicted by the fact that the Israeli army has never claimed or provided any evidence that the homes in the neighborhood of Gaza that Corrie was defending when she was killed were concealing tunnels or were involved in attacks on Israelis.
Claiming Corrie was in any way providing cover for suicide bombers is easily proved false by the fact that no Palestinian suicide bombers had come from Gaza three years before or during the time Corrie was there.
Claiming that Corrie was working with an "extremist" organization is contradicted by the fact that the International Solidarity Movement to End the Occupation is composed of leading Palestinian voices of non-violence and supported by numerous Israeli peace groups.
Legitimate questions can be raised about Corrie's risky decision to enter into a very dangerous conflict zone. But that zone was dangerous precisely because Israel has imposed a merciless military occupation over a largely defenseless population and was wantonly demolishing homes to steal land for Israeli settlements.
One can certainly and rightly blame, as Brumer does, Palestinian extremists for damaging the moral justness of the Palestinian cause through murderous and strategically worthless suicide bombings that have killed hundreds of innocent Israelis.
But none of that justifies Israel continuing to steal Palestinian land and building a wall deep within Palestinian lands to annex those settlements. Nor does it prevent Israel from taking unilateral steps to vacate completely the land that it has illegally occupied since 1967.
Brumer's complete silence regarding Israel's occupation and settlements implies that it does.
Brumer's implicit justification for Israel's occupation and settlements is the continually recycled myth that Israel has always extended its hand of peace while Palestinians have always rejected it. This myth conveniently ignores the fact Israel's "generous offer" at Camp David in 2000 was based on Israel annexing the bulk of its settlements, cutting any Palestinian state into five tiny enclaves surrounded by Israel. Brumer touts Israel's recent withdrawal from Gaza, but ignores Israel's withering siege upon its imprisoned population.
Brumer also justifies the status quo by emphasizing the immutable extremism of Hamas. But the fact is that Hamas has not conducted a single suicide bombing in nearly two years and has endorsed a reciprocal truce with Israel if it were to withdraw completely to its 1967 borders. But Israel completely rejects those terms, missing a historic opportunity to undercut Hamas extremism.
Those who truly support a balanced and just peace in the Middle East should honestly debate Corrie's life and legacy. Her very act of acknowledging legitimate Palestinians grievances and her promotion of alternatives to violence was a message of hope and peace sorely lacking today.
By attacking the messenger, Corrie's detractors are sending a clear message opposed to hope and peace.
As we reported in our previous article, the upcoming Give Me Liberty 2007 conference will examine U.S. Middle East Policy through the prism of the U.S. Constitution. During the conference we will examine the work of professors Mearsheimer (University of Chicago) and Walt (Harvard University) titled, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” and the book by Jimmy Carter titled, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.
Substantial documentary evidence presented by Mearsheimer, Walt and Carter supports the argument that the United States has abandoned its own national interest and security to advance the interests of Israel, that neither strategic nor moral arguments can justify America’s unconditional support for Israel, that the United States has become the de facto enabler of Israel’s unlawful expansion and military occupation of the Palestinian Territories, and that U.S. policy in the Middle East (including giving Israel well over $140 billion in U.S. income tax revenues) has been driven by the activities of the “Israel Lobby.”
Their work documents how the Israeli Lobby unashamedly boasts of its control over U.S. domestic and foreign policy and public opinion, and attacks any person or organization that criticizes or is perceived to be a threat to Israel’s interests.
According to Mearsheimer and Walt, “We use ‘the Lobby’ as a convenient term for the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to shape U.S. policy in a pro-Israel direction…The core of the Lobby is comprised of American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel’s interests.”
Referring to them as “extremists”, the Lobby has attacked columnist Devvy Kidd, constitutional attorney Larry Becraft, former IRS Special Agent Joe Banister, WTP Chairman Bob Schulz and others affiliated with the Tax Honesty Movement who have developed a substantial body of documentary evidence that conclusively proves the present federal income tax is an unlawful (Constitutionally prohibited) direct, un-apportioned tax on the labor of American citizens. See “Extremism In America: Tax Protest Movement” on one of the Israeli Lobby’s websites. (Don’t forget to click on UPDATE)
Why would the Israeli Lobby’s Anti-Defamation League take such a keen interest in defending the method by which the U.S. Government collects its internal revenues?
Why would the Lobby attempt to publicly demonize American citizens who are properly exercising their Right of Free Speech and the Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances, as expressly guaranteed by the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights?
Why would the Lobby concern itself with “extremists” who are peacefully and lawfully defending America’s Constitution and Founding Principles?
The mayor of Salt Lake City has become a national spokesman for the impeachment of President Bush.
