Salam Alrawi, Alwan for the Arts, Ramsey Clark, Sara Flaunders, Abdeen Jabara, DeeDee Halleck, Ahmed Issawi, Mona Khalidi, Clark Kissinger, Emily Kunstler, Dan Meyers, Ralph Poynter, Michael Ratner, Margaret Ratner Kunstler, Michael Steven Smith, and Lynne Stewart invite you to attend a book party to celebrate the release of:
Overcoming Zionism: Creating a Single Democratic State in Israel/Palestine,
by Joel Kovel
&
We Begin Here: Poems for Palestine and Lebanon,
Edited by Kamal Boullata and Kathy Engel
Monday, May 14, 2007, 5:30PM
Mamlouk
211 East 4th Street
Joel Kovel, Kathy Engel and others will read from their works.
Both books will be available for purchase
Refreshments will be provided by MAMLOUK
In Overcoming Zionism: Creating a Single Democratic State in Israel/Palestine, Kovel confronts the unfortunate confusion between Jews, Judaism, Zionism, and the State of Israel as the basis for systematic manipulation by the imperialist power system. He argues that the inner contradictions of Zionism have led Israel to a “state-sponsored racism” fully as incorrigible as that of apartheid South Africa and deserving the same resolution. Only a path toward a single-state secular democracy can provide the justice essential to healing the wounds of the Middle East.
Joel Kovel is a well-known writer on the Middle East conflict. He has written ten books which include The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World, White Racism a Psychohistory; Red Hunting in the Promised Land: Anti-communism and the Making of America. He is a professor of social science at Bard College and edits Capitalism, Nature and Socialism. He was a candidate for the Green nomination for US President in 2000.
We Begin Here: Poems for Palestine and Lebanon, contains poems written in response to the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon together with poems offered in support of the Palestinian and Lebanese people following the 2006 Israeli war on Lebanon, and others written about the U.S. war and occupation of Iraq. Following a great tradition of poetry throughout history, this book shows the vast conscience and lyrical spirit of resistance on the part of poets in support of the dignity, rights, and humanity of the Palestinian and Lebanese people.
Kathy Engel is a poet, creative and communications consultant for peace, social justice and human rights groups, and currently an adjunct professor at NYU. Her emphasis is connecting the imagination and art to work for social justice and peace. Her books include Banish The Tentative, 1989 and Ruth's Skirts, 2007. She is co editor of We Begin Here: Poems for Palestine and Lebanon, 2007. She has founded and co founded organizations including MADRE, Riptide Communications, East End Women in Black, Hayground School. She serves on the Advisory Board of the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation.
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
A racist law we cannot accept
Last update - 02:23 27/03/2007
A law we cannot accept
By Haaretz Editorial
The Citizenship Law continues to burden the law books and cause damage to the reputation of democracy in Israel. The blow to the right of Arab Israeli citizens to choose to live here with their partners is sweeping and detrimental to the rights of Arab citizens.
The amendment to the Citizenship Law was approved by the High Court of Justice exactly a year ago, with a majority of six justices in favor and five opposed. But it was obvious then that the approval was conditional and temporary, and would require significant changes if the state were to opt to make it permanent. Justice Edmond Levy, who joined the majority opinion and in essence legitimized the illegitimate, was of the opinion that he was voting in favor of extending the law by only two months. Meanwhile, the law was extended repeatedly, and this week it was extended for more than a year.
The state's promise to the High Court of Justice to make changes to the law - after the former president of the Supreme Court, Aharon Barak (who led the minority view), said that the prohibition was not proportional and that it undermined the constitutional right to equality and family - was not carried out. Even though a committee examining special humanitarian cases was established to evaluate each case independently (since the law states specifically that humanitarian issues cannot serve as the basis for the presence of a partner or a child in Israel) in practice, there is very little flexibility. If the centrality of the humanitarian argument is rejected at the outset, it is doubtful whether the committee has any practical significance.
The head of the committee is appointed by the Interior Minister, and it can be assumed that his views will hover over it. It is possible that a minister stricter than Roni Bar-On will be appointed in the future, who may not permit any such requests. In fact, the law allows the minister to prevent categorically the reunification of families with Arab citizens from countries in the region or the territories.
MK Zahava Gal-On, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and Adalah have not despaired of the possibility that the law will be revoked by the High Court of Justice, since their petition against the law still stands, and the view of Barak, who assumed the law would be rescinded for being unconstitutional unless it is changed, still echoes. Establishing a committee with such limited authority to examine special cases does not satisfy the petitioners and they are hoping that the High Court of Justice will also not be satisfied with this minimal development.
The main problem with the Citizenship Law in its new format is the lie inherent in its content - as if it is purely a security-related issue. When the state wants to annex[steal] territory, it ignores the security risk of including hundreds of thousands of hostile Palestinians. A large part of the requests for reunion come from residents of East Jerusalem, from whom it would have been possible to disengage some time ago if it were not for the delusional dream of unifying all the parts of the city.
The Citizenship Law does not further the country's security, but rather damages it by broadening the gap between the rights of Israel's Jewish and Arab citizens. It would have been better to do away with this amendment to the law and for the Interior Ministry to reject or approve requests for family reunification on an individual basis, on the basis of the opinion of security sources, just as it has been throughout the state's existence.
A law we cannot accept
By Haaretz Editorial
The Citizenship Law continues to burden the law books and cause damage to the reputation of democracy in Israel. The blow to the right of Arab Israeli citizens to choose to live here with their partners is sweeping and detrimental to the rights of Arab citizens.
The amendment to the Citizenship Law was approved by the High Court of Justice exactly a year ago, with a majority of six justices in favor and five opposed. But it was obvious then that the approval was conditional and temporary, and would require significant changes if the state were to opt to make it permanent. Justice Edmond Levy, who joined the majority opinion and in essence legitimized the illegitimate, was of the opinion that he was voting in favor of extending the law by only two months. Meanwhile, the law was extended repeatedly, and this week it was extended for more than a year.
The state's promise to the High Court of Justice to make changes to the law - after the former president of the Supreme Court, Aharon Barak (who led the minority view), said that the prohibition was not proportional and that it undermined the constitutional right to equality and family - was not carried out. Even though a committee examining special humanitarian cases was established to evaluate each case independently (since the law states specifically that humanitarian issues cannot serve as the basis for the presence of a partner or a child in Israel) in practice, there is very little flexibility. If the centrality of the humanitarian argument is rejected at the outset, it is doubtful whether the committee has any practical significance.
The head of the committee is appointed by the Interior Minister, and it can be assumed that his views will hover over it. It is possible that a minister stricter than Roni Bar-On will be appointed in the future, who may not permit any such requests. In fact, the law allows the minister to prevent categorically the reunification of families with Arab citizens from countries in the region or the territories.
MK Zahava Gal-On, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and Adalah have not despaired of the possibility that the law will be revoked by the High Court of Justice, since their petition against the law still stands, and the view of Barak, who assumed the law would be rescinded for being unconstitutional unless it is changed, still echoes. Establishing a committee with such limited authority to examine special cases does not satisfy the petitioners and they are hoping that the High Court of Justice will also not be satisfied with this minimal development.
The main problem with the Citizenship Law in its new format is the lie inherent in its content - as if it is purely a security-related issue. When the state wants to annex[steal] territory, it ignores the security risk of including hundreds of thousands of hostile Palestinians. A large part of the requests for reunion come from residents of East Jerusalem, from whom it would have been possible to disengage some time ago if it were not for the delusional dream of unifying all the parts of the city.
The Citizenship Law does not further the country's security, but rather damages it by broadening the gap between the rights of Israel's Jewish and Arab citizens. It would have been better to do away with this amendment to the law and for the Interior Ministry to reject or approve requests for family reunification on an individual basis, on the basis of the opinion of security sources, just as it has been throughout the state's existence.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Anti-Racism Day: "Israel is guilty of apartheid and colonization"
Anti-Racism Day: "Israel is guilty of apartheid and colonization"
Report, BADIL, 21 March 2007
Today, on the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the world comes together to reaffirm that racial discrimination is an assault on the foundation of the human rights system - the principle of equality. On this occasion, Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights stated, "a society that tolerates discrimination holds itself back, foregoing the contribution of whole parts of its population, and potentially sowing the seeds of violent conflict." She added that despite the fact that many states have accepted to fight racial discrimination "a reality check demonstrates that formal commitments are not enough."
Thirteen years after the fall of the apartheid regime in South Africa, Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and in Israel still face multiple forms of racial discrimination, including occupation, apartheid and colonization.
In the past few weeks, Israel has come under criticism from both the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the OPT for its regime of institutionalized discrimination.
Since 1948, Israeli laws have been shaped not only to prevent the return of about 7 million Palestinian refugees and internally displaced persons, but also to change the demographic composition of Israel and the OPT. This population transfer is aided by the Israeli Law of Return, which allows any Jew in the world to 'return' to Israel and be granted citizenship. According to CERD, the denial of the rights of many Palestinians to return and possess their homes in Israel "is discriminatory and perpetuates violations of fundamental human rights." CERD also applied the concept of apartheid to some of Israel's practices towards Palestinian citizens of Israel, notably in the managment of land and resources.
The UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the OPT, Prof. John Dugard concluded that Israel's discriminatory practices towards Palestinians amount to apartheid and colonization. Since 2002, thousands of Palestinians have been displaced by the construction of the Wall and its associated regime, something that Dugard criticized saying that "the "closed zone" is gradually being "cleansed" of Palestinians, where land will in due course be transferred to land-greedy settlers." He called upon the International Court of Justice to rule over the legal consequences arising from the Israeli regime of occupation in the OPT, as was done in the case of apartheid South Africa.
Similarly, in the pursuit of its discriminatory policies against the Palestinian citizens of Israel, the Israeli government confiscated over 12,000 dunams of Kafr Bir'im village inside Israel refusing to allow the residents, who were forced out in 1948 and are now internally displaced, to return to their village. The same applies to the Palestinian Bedouin of Arab As-Shubeih whose lands were and continue to be nationalized for the purpose of exclusive Jewish settlement and development.
Israel's policies aim to create a Jewish majority through the de-Palestinization of Palestinian land, a fact concluded by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 2003 which said that "Jewish nationality" is ground for "exclusive preferential treatment" resulting "in discriminatory treatment against non-Jews, in particular Palestinian refugees."
On the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, BADIL asks states to act according to their obligations and to ensure Israel's respect for humanitarian law and human rights, because in the words of Dugard, "if the West, which has hitherto led the promotion of human rights throughout the world, cannot demonstrate a real commitment to the human rights of the Palestinian people, the international human rights movement, which can claim to be the greatest achievement of the international community of the past 60 years, will be endangered and placed in jeopardy."
Related Links
BY TOPIC: Apartheid
The UN Anti-Racism Committee questons Israel's policy of apartheid, BADIL (13 March 2007)
UN Committee urges Israel to abandon racist practices, Adalah (10 March 2007)
UN Rapporteur compares Israel to Apartheid South Africa (27 February 2007)
BADIL
Report, BADIL, 21 March 2007
 |
| A Palestinian flag waving over Israeli soldiers during a demonstration against the controversial separation wall in the West Bank village of Bil'in west of Ramallah, November 24, 2006. (MaanImages/Fadi Arouri) |
Today, on the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the world comes together to reaffirm that racial discrimination is an assault on the foundation of the human rights system - the principle of equality. On this occasion, Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights stated, "a society that tolerates discrimination holds itself back, foregoing the contribution of whole parts of its population, and potentially sowing the seeds of violent conflict." She added that despite the fact that many states have accepted to fight racial discrimination "a reality check demonstrates that formal commitments are not enough."
Thirteen years after the fall of the apartheid regime in South Africa, Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and in Israel still face multiple forms of racial discrimination, including occupation, apartheid and colonization.
In the past few weeks, Israel has come under criticism from both the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the OPT for its regime of institutionalized discrimination.
Since 1948, Israeli laws have been shaped not only to prevent the return of about 7 million Palestinian refugees and internally displaced persons, but also to change the demographic composition of Israel and the OPT. This population transfer is aided by the Israeli Law of Return, which allows any Jew in the world to 'return' to Israel and be granted citizenship. According to CERD, the denial of the rights of many Palestinians to return and possess their homes in Israel "is discriminatory and perpetuates violations of fundamental human rights." CERD also applied the concept of apartheid to some of Israel's practices towards Palestinian citizens of Israel, notably in the managment of land and resources.
The UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the OPT, Prof. John Dugard concluded that Israel's discriminatory practices towards Palestinians amount to apartheid and colonization. Since 2002, thousands of Palestinians have been displaced by the construction of the Wall and its associated regime, something that Dugard criticized saying that "the "closed zone" is gradually being "cleansed" of Palestinians, where land will in due course be transferred to land-greedy settlers." He called upon the International Court of Justice to rule over the legal consequences arising from the Israeli regime of occupation in the OPT, as was done in the case of apartheid South Africa.
Similarly, in the pursuit of its discriminatory policies against the Palestinian citizens of Israel, the Israeli government confiscated over 12,000 dunams of Kafr Bir'im village inside Israel refusing to allow the residents, who were forced out in 1948 and are now internally displaced, to return to their village. The same applies to the Palestinian Bedouin of Arab As-Shubeih whose lands were and continue to be nationalized for the purpose of exclusive Jewish settlement and development.
Israel's policies aim to create a Jewish majority through the de-Palestinization of Palestinian land, a fact concluded by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 2003 which said that "Jewish nationality" is ground for "exclusive preferential treatment" resulting "in discriminatory treatment against non-Jews, in particular Palestinian refugees."
On the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, BADIL asks states to act according to their obligations and to ensure Israel's respect for humanitarian law and human rights, because in the words of Dugard, "if the West, which has hitherto led the promotion of human rights throughout the world, cannot demonstrate a real commitment to the human rights of the Palestinian people, the international human rights movement, which can claim to be the greatest achievement of the international community of the past 60 years, will be endangered and placed in jeopardy."
Related Links
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Blacks suffer most in U.S. foreclosure surge
Subprime lenders targeting blacks, Hispanics, analysts say
---
---
By Jason Szep 1 hour, 50 minutes ago
Barbara Anderson and her husband know racism. Among the first blacks to move into an Ohio neighborhood 25 years ago, she watched in horror as white neighbors burned her garage nearly to the ground.
Fast-forward to 2007 and Anderson talks of a different sort of discrimination: brokers of subprime mortgages who prey on borrowers with weak credit histories like the Andersons, who raised eight children in Cleveland's Slavic Village district.
"These subprime lenders target you to take you through disaster," said Anderson, 59, who filed for bankruptcy after a legal tussle with a subprime lender, a "nightmare" that she said ended four years ago when her home was nearly foreclosed.
"I was fortunate. I went to another bank that decided to give me a chance with a new loan. The day that happened my headache stopped, my blood pressure lowered, my sick stomach went away, and it was because now I could see some daylight."
Across the United States, blacks and Hispanics are more likely to get a high-cost, subprime mortgage when buying a home than whites, a major factor in a wave of foreclosures in poor, often black neighborhoods nationwide as a housing slowdown puts millions of "subprime" borrowers at risk of default.
Even more troubling, real-estate industry analysts say, is an alarming proportion of blacks and Hispanics who received subprime loans by predatory lenders even when their credit picture was good enough to deserve a cheaper loan.
In six major U.S. cities, black borrowers were 3.8 times more likely than whites to receive a higher-cost home loan, and Hispanic borrowers were 3.6 times more likely, according to a study released this month by a group of fair housing agencies.
"Blacks and Latinos have lower incomes and less wealth, less steady employment and lower credit ratings, so a completely neutral and fair credit-rating system would still give a higher percentage of subprime loans to minorities," said Jim Campen, a University of Massachusetts economist who contributed to the study.
"But the problem is exacerbated by a financial system which isn't fair," he said.
In greater Boston, 71 percent of blacks earning above $153,000 in 2005 took out mortgages with high interest rates, compared to just 9.4 percent of whites, while about 70 percent of black and Hispanic borrowers with incomes between $92,000 and $152,000 received high-interest rate home loans, compared to 17 percent for whites, according to his research.
"It's a huge disparity," he said. High-cost mortgages usually have interest rates at least 3 percentage points above conventional mortgages.
PREDATORY LENDERS
Predatory lenders moved aggressively into the subprime mortgage market as a housing price boom between 2000 and 2005 cut the risk of lending to people with damaged credit ratings.
Many focused on minority neighborhoods in slick sales pitches that offered the American dream: home ownership with no money down and little worry about poor credit.
"The predatory lenders reach out to those who don't really know, people with a lack of education," said Cassandra Hedges, a black 37-year-old mother of two fighting to stave off foreclosure of the Ohio home she bought three years ago.
"One of the first things my broker asked me was 'How do you know you are ready to buy a house. Have you done any research?' We said 'No'. At that point I think he realized 'Okay I got some people that don't know what the heck they are doing'."
She and her husband Andre now face a 10.75 percent interest rate on an adjustable-rate mortgage and monthly payments of $1,600 -- more than double the $650 she told her broker she could afford. Foreclosure looms after she missed a payment.
"If you're white they overlook the fact that your credit score is a little too low or you have one extra late payment," said Barbara Rice, a community organizer at the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, a nonprofit advocacy group.
Rice, who is white, and a colleague who is black took part in an experiment in Massachusetts last year to test the racial bias of mortgage brokers. They both posed as prospective home buyers in a separate meetings with several brokers.
Rice presented a worse credit rating and lower income than her black colleague to brokers but received better treatment.
"I was given more information," she said.
Many traditional banks do not run branches in poor minority neighborhoods, creating a vacuum often filled by predatory lenders and unscrupulous brokers, said Stephen Ross, a University of Connecticut economist who studies lending.
When the property market was strong, those brokers could tell borrowers that rising prices meant they could easily remortgage their properties to keep up with payments. But since the market peaked in 2005, millions are struggling to repay those loans. This year, some 1.5 million homeowners will face foreclosure, research firm RealtyTrac estimates.
The U.S. Mortgage Bankers Association said disparities by race alone in home loans do not prove unlawful discrimination but may indicate a need for closer scrutiny.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)