Democracy in Action

Last night, I was one of an audience of several hundred people who attended the monthly meeting of the Portland Human Rights Commission (HRC).  Last month, the HRC had taken the courageous and controversial step of endorsing a letter asking that the city’s Socially Responsible Investment Commission place four American companies complicit with the Israeli Occupation of Palestine on the city’s “do not buy” list and/or to divest from any of those companies currently in the city’s portfolio (http://occupationfreepdx.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Coalition-letter-to-Socially-Responsible-Final-Oct-8-2015.pdf). In the face of tremendous “public” outcry (mostly generated by Portland’s Jewish Federation), the HRC agreed to provide agenda time to opponents to this action.

Described in a newspaper article the previous week as “obscure,” the HRC is more used to meeting in a small conference room than in the auditorium that last night’s meeting had been moved to.  Commission chair Chabre Vickers performed the Herculean task of keeping the crowd respectful of other viewpoints and of the HRC itself, while extending the agenda to provide time for the invited speakers as well as the 45 members of the public who had signed up to speak.

To provide a bit of background:  Over the summer, religious, social justice and human rights groups working for justice for Palestine formed “Occupation Free Portland” (full disclaimer – I am a member of this group) to encourage city officials to align municipal investments with values of human rights.   In September, this coalition composed a letter to the Socially Responsible Investment Committee (SRIC), asking that they recommend that the city divest from and/or place on the “do not buy” list four companies (Hewlett Packard, Motorola, Caterpillar and G4S) who play major roles in the ongoing Occupation. 

This letter was initially presented to the city’s HRC for their endorsement during the “public comments” period at the Commission’s September meeting.  The HRC asked for more time to review the letter and the backup materials that the coalition presented, and promised a vote at its October meeting.

 

At that October meeting, the HRC voted unanimously to endorse the letter, which will then be presented to the SRIC for further consideration and possible action.  The backlash was swift.

Once the action (taken in a public meeting!) was known, the Jewish Federation and its allies swung into high gear – accusing Occupation Free Portland and, by association the HRC, of everything from anti-Semitism to wanting to destroy the State of Israel.  A local, “alternative” newspaper, Willamette Week, wrote a one-sided story about the meeting   http://www.wweek.com/2015/10/28/portlands-obscure-human-rights-commission-sparks-anger-with-israel-palestine-vote/; politicians were contacted and favors called in to get support for the Jewish Federation position.  Reportedly, several members of the HRC even received “death threats.”

All came to a head in last night’s emotional 3 ½ hour meeting.  Vickers began by reading a heartfelt statement as to exactly what the HRC had voted on, stating that, as a courtesy, opponents to that position had been offered the opportunity to speak to the issue addressed in the “controversial” letter – namely, did the four American companies, in fact, violate human rights?  She asked all who spoke to be respectful of each other and of the process – and, when outbursts subsequently interrupted one of the first speakers, introduced a security officer who promised to evict anyone responsible for future outbursts.

The audience was then treated to about 30 minutes from various Jewish Federation speakers who used that time not to discuss the four companies or their human rights violations, but to give wide-ranging speeches on topics ranging from the Balfour Declaration to present-day anti-Semitism in Europe. 

When it was time for the Commissioners to comment on the issue, two, Sam Sachs and Marcia Suttenberg “confessed” that they had not done their homework before the October vote, stated that they were “horrified” by what they had subsequently learned, and wished to rescind their support.

Vickers then called on the 45 members of the public who had registered to speak to the issue – allotting two minutes to each speaker (and using a timekeeper to strictly enforce this limit).  The voices ranged from clergy (rabbis, priests and ministers), to ordinary people – Palestinian-Americans, Jews, students, housewives, professionals, all of whom had an opinion on the issue – although very few addressed the issue that the HRC had actually voted on – namely were the four American companies complicit in human rights violations?

The meeting concluded with a lengthy discussion by the commissioners; Sachs and Suttenberg reiterated their dismay about what the HRC had done and wanted to “undo” it; other commissioners stated that they had done their “homework” before voting, and had heard nothing that changed their mind about the specific action that the HRC had taken.

In the end, the HRC voted NOT to take a re-vote on the issue, but to make a note in the record that Sachs and Suttenberg had recanted their original “yes” votes.  And, with that, the die-hards still left in the audience went home – content that the democratic process had once again worked the way it was supposed to!!

News That Makes Me Crazy!

‘Tis said that good things come in threes.  I believe the converse is also true – bad things also come in threes!  In the face of the overwhelming bad news coming out of Palestine/Israel this week, three stories – for me – stood out:

Mufti Amin al-Husseini

The first was a report that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has taken to blaming the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem for the Holocaust, claiming that, starting in the 1920s, Mufti Amin al-Husseini told Hitler to kill the Jews that he was planning to expel from Germany rather than evicting them, because the latter course of action would send them to Palestine (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/10/26/netanyahus-outrageous-lie-palestinian-grand-mufti-hitler-column/74487550).  

Now, let’s never mind that this conversation never happened.  Historians and scholars far more knowledgeable than I have reported that while al-Husseini did, in fact, talk to Hitler, it was in November of 1941, well after the Holocaust was under way and al-Husseini’s meeting with Hitler was to ask for support for an independent Palestinian state (remember, this was during the British Mandate period).

While it is clear that Netanyahu’s motive for making this ridiculous claim is to gain support for the increasingly aggressive Israeli campaign of violence against the Palestinians, it also demonstrates the lengths to which the right-wing Zionist government will go to rationalize what an increasing number of people are recognizing as an Apartheid state.  And that is bad news – for both the Israelis who are hearing shades of “Holocaust denial” in their elected leadership – and for the Palestinians – the perpetual “victims” of this conflict no matter who is holding the weapon!

Why "punish" Abbas but not Netanyahu?

The second story that made me angry was that the US Government has voted to decrease aid to Palestine by 22% as a “message” to Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas to stop the escalating violence in the West Bank (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/10/abbas-netanyahu-palestinian-authority.html#).  I am outraged that my government – and my tax dollars – not only to continue to fund the violence by generous gifts to the Israeli government (which far exceed anything that goes to the Palestinians!), but has, once again, unilaterally accept the Israeli rhetoric that blames the Palestinians for all of the evils in the region!  If the US truly wanted to bring peace to the region – they would cut off aid to all parties concerned unless and until not only the violence, but also the human rights violations, have ended!

Finally, and this is also related to the US’ ongoing “love affair” with Israel – I was horrified to hear that a forum will be held in Jerusalem, providing US Presidential candidates an hour each to “present their views on U.S. foreign policy, US-Israel relations, threats affecting US allies in Europe and Asia, the instability in the Middle East, terrorism, and solutions to increase the economic well-being and security of Americans in the US and abroad.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/natasha-srdoc/firstever-us-presidential_b_8367160.html.

Should US Presidential Candidates debate here?

First, I am categorically stating here and now that I will not support any candidate – of either party – who participates in this event.  Israel is NOT our 51^st state, and while there well may be issues about our foreign policy that affect Israel (as, indeed, they affect the rest of the world!), there is no earthy reason to stage such an event abroad – much less is one of the most contentious places on earth!   As it did when Netanyahu invited himself to speak to Congress, this is a clear case of another country attempting to influence our foreign policy – and I would hope that all serious candidates will distance themselves from this spectacle! 

Violence - at home and abroad

I feel like I’ve been out of the loop for the past few months (I was in England for six weeks and doing family stuff before and after that trip!), and I’m now trying to jump on a merry-go-round that just keeps spinning faster and faster!  My ability to keep current with happenings – be they in the US, Palestine or the UK – was impeded by circumstances beyond my control, and I now am finding it difficult to make sense of what is happening anywhere in the world!

And who is the aggressor here?

The latest mass shooting/gun violence in my home state of Oregon happened when I was in London – prompting the predictable reactions from Brits who, upon noticing my “American” accent, asked what part of the “States” I was from.  They don’t understand gun violence there – it just isn’t an issue – and it’s difficult to explain something that I don’t understand myself!  Why do normal, intelligent people believe that a gun will somehow make them “safer” or – if they really do believe that – why are they so adamantly opposed to registering their lethal weapons and subscribing to protocols so guns don’t get into the hands of people who shouldn’t have them (mentally ill, convicted felons, etc.)?

And yes, violent people are everywhere!  Which brings me to the real point of my anger and sadness.  The feed from the social media that I see is full of the violence in Palestine/Israel.  Some are calling it a “third intifada,” or speculating that a “third intifada” is imminent.  And the reporting from the so-called “mainstream” media is full of “Palestinian terrorists,” highlighting incidents in which Palestinians instigated an “attack” on Israelis, and never mention the precipitating attacks by Israelis on Palestinians.

I think most of us would rather see this...

Those of you reading this do not need to be told that the reporting in the US – and probably in much of the “first world” as well – is biased, and that the “Palestinian side” of the story is receiving short shrift.  Nor do you need a detailed list of incidents of anti-Palestinian violence, starting with the Nakba and extended to the latest shooting/stabbing/beating of a Palestinian man/woman/child this morning.

 

...than this! 

I’m tired of the barrage of e-mails asking me to sign one more petition, or call one more politician; tired of the Facebook posts with pictures of violence and killing, tired of e-mails from friends on the ground describing the violence!  And tired of avoiding the subject closest to my heart so as to avoid conflict in my own family!

It’s taken me several days to write this post – mostly because I’m not sure what I really want to say!  Am I looking for understanding?  Agreement?  Encouragement?  Or do I just want to get the negative stuff out of my system so I can do the work that I know needs doing?

In closing, I’d like to borrow the “to do” list from the YWCA of Palestine, who describes the current situation in Palestine/Israel as “an endless state of emergency” and suggests five ways we can all help:

· Support Palestinian rights to nonviolent resistance
· Demand that all holy sites be respected and protected
· Use your economic leverage to support the BDS global movement
· Hold Israel accountable for war crimes at the International Criminal Court
· End arms trades and unconditional military and diplomatic aid

Refugees

Modern-day refugees escaping war-torn Syria

I’m spending a few weeks in the UK – where the biggest news story is the hundreds of thousands of refugees from war-torn Syria making their way to Europe to escape the devastation in their homeland, and to find asylum in one of the European countries.  Not surprisingly, the arguments I hear on the radio and read in the press range from humanitarian (“Of course we have to help these poor people”) to pragmatic (“Where will the resources to feed and house them come from?”) to hostile (“This is not our problem!”)  Not surprisingly, many in the latter group blame the US for much of this “problem.”

I don’t know enough about the entire situation to comment as intelligently as I’d like to – why is Germany able to open its borders to all who need help, while the UK is only now (after the publishing of a horrific photo of a drowned child) reluctantly agreeing to take a limited number – and that only under specific conditions?  But the humanitarian crisis, of which I am only seeing the proverbial “tip of the iceberg” makes me wonder – why hasn’t anyone suggested that the US take in some of these refugees?

“Give me your tired, your poor – your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…”  The last time I visited the Statue of Liberty, those words were still on display.  And yet, today, not only is the US leaving the entire “refugee crisis” to Europe, we have pulled the “welcome mat” out from under the feet of those who seek refuge from economic situations closer to home.

In the swearing off further discussions of the 2016 Presidential candidates, I note that a discussion of immigration certainly seems to be playing a significant part in that process.  And I wonder – who among us is a “native?”  Who can claim ancestry that goes back to the founding of a country – any country? 

My “American” roots only go back two or three generations – my paternal grandparents were both Scandinavian immigrants, while my maternal grandmother was conceived in England, and my maternal grandfather was first-generation German.  Where would I be – where would any of us be – if the US had not welcomed those early “immigrants” to Ellis Island and other points of entry?

Palestinian refugees - 1948

Inevitably, when talking about refugees, my thoughts – and my heart – goes to the 750,000 Palestinian refugees of 1948 – those forced from their homes to fulfill Israel’s dream of statehood.  How many of their descendants are among the refugees who have fled present-day Syria – becoming refugees yet again?

And how long will it take for the world to wake up – to realize that we are all strangers here – and we all deserve a helping hand? 

Note:  In the 24 hours between drafting this post and preparing to post it, I did receive an e-mail from one of my human rights list-serves, suggesting a petition to Congress to take some of these refugees into the US: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/authorize-and-resettle-syrian-refugees-us