|
Is Rabbi Lerner a Zionist? |
 |
|
by
|
|
Saturday, 28 January 2012 06:00 |
“The conflict is due to Jewish nationalism- Zionism, which pre-dates the holocaust ….. my relatives who were murdered by the Nazis did not die to give cover to Zionist crimes in Palestine, and did not die to give him (Lerner) his ridiculous argument” ….Rich Siegel
Rabbi Michael Lerner's book discussion event on January 22 for his new book, "Embracing Israel/Palestine” went horribly wrong when it took a completely unexpected and shocking turn near the end.
Sponsored by Riverside Church Israel/Palestine Task Force, and Co-Sponsored by: Brooklyn For Peace, Jewish Voice For Peace,Tree of Life Education Fund, NY, Friends of Sabeel, North America, NY, and The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, USA, it was meant to be a dialogue between Rabbi Lerner and David Wildman, with a Special appearance by Rich Siegel, a former Zionist turned a peace activist, singing songs from his new CD “The Way to Peace”.
Everything went smoothly as planned. Rich sang one of his songs. Rabbi Lerner and David Wildman discussed the book and the topics it dealt with.
Rich Siegel
Wildman, the executive secretary for Human Rights & Racial Justice with the United Methodist Church's General Board of Global Ministries, very well versed on the subject, interviewed Rabbi Lerner,
Lerner talked about the conflict being due to two traumatized people, the Jews traumatized by the holocaust, the Arabs traumatized by colonialism. He also mentioned Arab intolerance of Zionist settlement.
After the discussion Rich was scheduled to sing another song. He stepped up to do so. This is where things changed dramatically.
Rich, to everyone’s surprise, launched into an unscheduled impromptu speech of his own.
According to Rich, Rabbi Lerner is basically an apologist for Zionism pretending to be a peace activist. In his mini speech, Rich called Lerner on his “ridiculous” claims and stated firmly that the conflict in Palestine is due solely to Jewish nationalism, Zionism, which, he pointed out, predates the holocaust.
Becoming emotional, he said that his relatives, who were murdered by the Nazis, did not die to give cover to Zionist crimes in Palestine, and did not die to give Lerner his “ridiculous” argument.
According to reports, Lerner wanted to walk out but Wildman encouraged him to stay, and he did- through Rich’s speech and his song afterwards.
The whole program was videotaped. The organizers of the event and/or the videographer should put it on the internet. It would make instructive and interesting viewing.
Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of Tikkun Magazine, considered to be one of the most respected intellectual/cultural but also the most controversial magazines in the Jewish world,
He is chair of the interfaith Network of Spiritual Progressives, rabbi of Beyt Tikkun synagogue in Berkeley, Ca. and author of eleven books, most recently the national best-seller The Left Hand of God: Taking Back our Country From the Religious Right.
His books include: The Left Hand of God: Taking Back our Country from the Religious Right; The Geneva Accord and Other Strategies for Middle East Peace; collection of Best Contemporary Jewish Writing; Spirit Matters: Global Healing and the Wisdom of the Soul; The Socialism of Fools: Anti-Semitism on the Left; Jews and Blacks: Let the Healing Begin (with Cornel West); The Politics of Meaning; Surplus Powerlessness
Extensive biography at http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/biographical-notes-on-rabbi-lerner
David Wildman is the executive secretary for Human Rights & Racial Justice with the United Methodist Church's General Board of Global Ministries He visits Afghanistan and the Middle East regularly, serves on the board of the National Farm Worker Ministry and is active in corporate accountability work with the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility.
Biography at: http://www.iwj.org/detail/person.cfm?person_id=142
Rich Siege, an accomplished pianist/vocalist/songwriter, He was brought up in a conservative Zionist family but, after educating himself about the history of Zionism, the events that lead to the establishment of Israel and the policy and actions of the Israeli government towards the Palestinians, became a peace activist speaking out for justice to the Palestinians.
He has made a very emotional video about the Children dying in Palestine. In it he mentions some of the myths that Zionists repeat ad nauseum . In the original CD, after the song Rich and his fellow song-writer Dave Lippman speak their feelings about what is happening in Palestine and what justice demands. Rich makes out a cogent case for a single secular state solution where the Jews, Christians and Muslims live amicably together.
These can be seen on two separate videos on the YouTube at http://youtu.be/1x2axqjhI6g
And at http://youtu.be/ojv1FWFGCgw
Rich carries out his activism through music, singing in bars, at peace events and other gatherings.
He has just released a new CD “The Way to Peace”, featuring Gilad Atzmon (woodwinds), Eugene Moye (cello), Gary Ciuci (guitar), Cameron Brown (bass), and Anthony Pinciotti (drums). This CD features vocals in English, Spanish, Arabic, and Hebrew and features a new cello arrangement of “In Palestine.”
(Details at http://palestineonlinestore.com/shop/the-way-to-peace-by-rich-siegel/
|
|
Bahrain - the Uprising Continues... |
|
|
by
|
|
Tuesday, 17 January 2012 23:01 |
I've been meaning to write something about Bahrain for a while now but, today, I read something which made me realize that I needed to write it TODAY :
"It is with streams of tears on my face I write this. This shameless day had the nerve to come; Badryia, the Bahraini mother of a detainee, set herself on fire today. Helplessness burnt her soul way before her depressive act burnt her mere body."
This tweet, written by @AnarchistBH, relates to a 59 year old woman, Badryia Ali, who set herself on fire on Saturday in Bahrain. Ali, whose son had been detained since last April, died as a result of her injuries, according to Al Wasat (a Bahraini online newspaper). Her protest brings the Arab Spring almost back to where it started with the death of Mohammed Bouazizi on 4th January, 2011, subsequent to his own act of desperation in Tunisia.
While the West waxes lyrical on its 'success' in Libya, Bahrain seems to be burning more or less unnoticed, with a few exceptions, by the mainstream media.
The Bahraini protests began on February 14th 2011 and, at that time, there was a fair amount of coverage in the mainstream Western media, you probably even remember it? Protesters marching to the Pearl Roundabout in Manama, and the world watching on and feeling a sense of vicarious freedom as we watched our Arab brothers and sisters try to take control of their lives. Then the Saudi Arabian tanks rolled in and somehow we forgot all about it, got side-tracked maybe with the 'successes' in Egypt and Libya. I'm really not sure what happened to our interest in Bahrain, but the Western media seemed to lose interest reasonably speedily favoring the more positive-outcome stories of that region.
However, since that time, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR) has catalogued at least 50 confirmed deaths (as of 10th January 2012) and provides a list of 90 'targeted journalists' who have either been detained, beaten or otherwise impeded in the course of their work. The predominant targets appear to be photojournalists.
Nabeel Najab, President of BCHR, was himself beaten and briefly detained when he took part in protest march in Manama at the beginning of January 2012.
Reporters Without Borders (RWB) reports on the beating endured outside of a Police Station in Samaheej, northeast of Manama, on 3 January by Mazen Mahdi, a photo-journalist working for the German news agency, DPA, despite wearing a vest clearly marked with the word "PRESS". The same RWB article also reports that Reuters photographer, Hamad Mohamed, together with a colleague from RTR agency, were both briefly detained by the police in December, 2011, despite both clearly identifying themselves as journalists. Similarly, the Bahraini blogger and Tweeter, Zainab Al-Khawaja ( @angryarabiya ) was 'manhandled' and arrested on 15 December, 2011, and held for five days before being released to await trial for "attacking a police officer, taking part in an illegal demonstration and inciting subversion." If convicted, she faces a possible two-year jail sentence. Even the New York Times journalists are not exempt from the wrath of the riot and security police in Bahrain as NYT journalist, Nick Kristoff and his cameraman, discovered on 9th December, 2011, when teargas was fired directly at them. The list goes on and on and seems fairly indiscriminate, pretty much the only requirement to make yourself a target, it seems, is that you are reporting on or journalling, the events transpiring in Bahrain.
And this is before we even start on the detainees who seem to have somehow 'died' or 'disappeared' while in custody. Pretty much the only reliable source of information available comes from the Bahrain Center for Human Rights who are doing their level best to collate and record all the missing, detained and beaten protesters. Their website provides a link, in both English and Arabic, for people to notify them of further disappearances.
So indiscriminate are the Bahraini security and riot police, that they include the elderly and children in their sights. Press TV reported on Sunday, 15th January, 2012, on the death of an elderly Bahraini female, Salma Abdolmohsen, subsequent to teargas being fired directly inside of her home. This seems to be a fairly common tactic employed by the security forces and there are a plethora of video's and reports available across the web showing the effects of inhaling the toxic gas emitted from the teargas cannisters. Indeed, if you are directly hit, the cannister itself is recorded as having caused several deaths according to the BCHR statistics. The youngest recorded victim of the Bahraini regime's crackdown is 5 day old Sajida Faisal who died on 11 December, 2011, from teargas inhalation. The official Bahraini government statement relating to her death claims that she died from 'bacterial meningitis' although they are unable to provide any supporting evidence from the doctors at the hospital where young Sajida died.
Meanwhile, the Bahraini King, Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, has made a statement suggesting that he may be considering issuing a royal decree to 'amend the constitution and grant a greater role to the 40-seat lower house of parliament' according a report on 15th January by Associated Press. However, it remains to be seen whether or not such a royal decree is actually issued and, if it is, what it actually contains.
The BCHR reported on 14th January, 2012, that Yousif Ahmed Muwali, a 24 year old who had been reported to the police as missing by his mother five days ago, had been 'found dead' by the Bahraini Ministry of the Interior. Despite being made to wait several hours before being allowed to view his body, his father and a lawyer were eventually allowed into the morgue and state that his body shows clear signs of torture with evidence of bruising on his body, together with cigarette burns on his arms. The Chicago Tribune further reports that Bahrain's main Shi'ite opposition group, Wefaq, have called for an 'independent investigation' into his death. Wefaq's statement says there is "a complete loss of confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and security services of Bahrain".
Bahrain is led by a ruling Sunni minority and the Shi'ite majority have reported repeated and increasing attacks upon their number since the beginning of the protests last year. It is also claimed that much of the unrest in Bahrain was dispersed with the help of Sunni-led neighbors, Saudi Arabia, but the protests continue on a daily basis.
The United States continues to moor its fifth fleet in Bahrain and, according to the Chicago Tribune article, the US has recently made a $53 million dollar arms sale to Bahrain "contingent on a positive response to the recommendations of a government inquiry into the unrest."
Bahraini government officials continue to claim that they are committed to reform and change in their country but we have yet to see much concrete evidence of this. They may continue to release statements of their 'intentions' to issue royal decrees to investigate this or that, or to promise future changes, but thus far, there is little to no evidence to support that any of these promises have manifested in any actual change or any royal decrees have materialized which would lead to such change. Words are cheap, let us see some action. I, for one, would be delighted to be proven wrong on this and to see REAL change being pursued by the Bahraini regime. But I am not holding my breath...
In the meantime, what are we to do to assist our fellow human beings who are continuing to call for their freedom in Bahrain? While we tweet, blog and discuss between ourselves the horror and injustice of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Enemy Expatriation Act (EEA) and stand in solidarity with our sisters and brothers occupying not only Wall Street, but every far flung corner of the world you can think of, should we not spare a few moments of our time to endeavor to spread the word and provide information about what is going on in Bahrain?
Maybe 2011 will go down in history for many things, but undeniably, the Occupy Wall Street campaign will be one of the most memorable. The year we all woke up and began to see the various injustices that had been visited upon us over decades. The year we found our respective voices and decided it was about time we stood up to be counted. People may march in person, they may blog online, they may send money to support the cause, but somehow it seems that everyone is a part of the overall whole. And that is something we should all be both proud of and determined about. But let us not forget our other responsibilities. We are all now part of a global community, the world is becoming smaller by the day, and we can no longer legitimately say "what happens on the other side of the world doesn't concern me", because we all now know that it DOES!
Quite why the mainstream media have been so tardy in their reporting of the protests and human rights violations in Bahrain I'm not entirely sure. Partly it may be due to the difficulties in getting reliable reports out of the country, partly also to the problems encountered by Western journalists who wish to visit the country to 'see for themselves', there may be many reasons, but none of them really stack up to me. There is a fair amount of reporting about the situation in Syria, almost on a daily basis we can expect to see a report of some type or another on our tv screens or in our newspapers, and yet, information on Bahrain seems much harder to come by. In these days of rolling 24/7 news media, it's so easy to take our eye off the ball and be seduced into focussing our energies on the success stories (and I'm using the word "success" advisedly) but, just because Bahrain is not featuring in the headlines of your daily news bulletin, do not be fooled into thinking nothing is happening there, or that the protests are over. They are not. They continue on a daily basis, as do the deaths, disappearances and random detentions.
So, let's take some of our new-found power and focus it on Bahrain. Let's write to our news organizations and demands answers as to why we are not seeing more about the deaths, detainments and disappearances there. The freedom of the people of Bahrain affects all of us and we must never forget that.
And finally, before I end, remember The Pearl Roundabout which I talked about at the beginning of this article, which the Bahraini protesters marched so bravely and so optimistically towards, feeling assured that our help would come? Well, it was levelled by the Bahraini regime on 18th March, 2011...
This afternoon, 18th January, 2012, the protesters will march to Manama.
(This blog was first posted on The Daily Kos (with links and photos!) on 15th January, 2012.)
http://www.bahrainrights.org/en
|
|
|
Qatar's Delirious Ambitions |
|
|
by
|
|
Saturday, 10 December 2011 06:38 |
“Who is Qatar?” – Abdel-Rahman Shalgham, Libyan Ambassador to the United Nations
The diminutive Gulf totalitarian monarchy of Qatar, has been making quite a name for itself of late. It was one of the only Arab countries to provide air support in Libya, its customs officials — seemingly unprovoked — recently attacked a Russian ambassador, it cajoled the Arab League into voting for sanctions against Syria, and it plays host to Al Jazeera which has; increasingly, looked more and more, like a mouthpiece for the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) and the West. [1] Although, Qatar would appear to be a Lilliputian micro-petrostate, it would seem to be one with Napoleonic delusions of grandeur.
The Emir of Qatar — a real peach — who deposed his own father, took power at the early age of 44. Unlike his father, who preferred to use the kingdom’s resources to remain at the same level as the other sheikdoms in the region, the young Emir sought that Qatar should be known and acknowledged. In doing so the young Emir surrounded himself, with a phalanx of Western technocratic advisers. Additionally, the Emir sought to become one of the world’s, most impish international and geopolitical actors.
In an article in May, the noted Asia Times correspondent Pepe Escobar, included Qatar — in its rightful place — among the “counterrevolution club” of Middle Eastern countries. Along with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Oman it comprises the Gulf Cooperation Council; a deeply backward and anachronistic bloc of sheikdoms, profoundly tied (and some would say indentured) to the Western countries. In fact, the Obama White House played host to the Emir of Qatar, just this past April — ostensibly for its role, in the promotion of democratization. The White House may value its role in the NATO misadventurism in Libya, but on the home front, this democratizing impulse would appear to be glaringly lost. [2]
The Emir exercises virtual total power, with few restraints on his grip. In Qatari courts the opinion of two women is equal to that of one man; and moreover, nearly about half of all Qatari judges are at-will employees, which limits their independence, considering that they can be dismissed promptly — in other words — at the drop of a hat. Qatar remains one of the only three Arab countries, that has not signed the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and Qatar has also signed on to precious few international human rights conventions and accords. Additionally, Qatar is a destination country for women who are trafficked, and forced into conditions of coercive labor. And similarly, foreign domestic workers, often struggle under conditions approaching involuntary servitude, and some are even sexually abused. [3]
Though Qatar, has in the past, even hosted a Hamas delegation, as well as tried to remain amicable with the government of Iran, it has increasingly looked — as if — it is coming under the thumb of the Anglo-Americans. Qatar had also been seen as an intermediary with Syria, and had invested heavily in the Syrian economy, but now it seems to have signed on — to a different policy — a policy of Libya 2.0. [4] And Qatar, ostensibly so concerned about democracy, gave its full backing, to neighboring Saudi Arabia’s intervention into the majority Shia, Sunni-led Kingdom of Bahrain.
Qatar not only funneled hundreds of millions to the Libyan opposition, but dispatched Western-trained advisers, who helped finance, arm and train the so-called revolutionary militias. The nature of Qatar’s future machinations in Syria, is, of course, yet to be determined. But if its coarse, robust and inauspicious role at the Arab League is any portent — as to its tactility, we can expect more of the same financing of an armed “revolution”, not knowing what will be wrought for the citizens of a (formerly) sovereign country.
Notes:
[1]http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/forte220911.html
[2]http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ME28Ak01.html
[3]http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=181
[4]http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ML02Ak01.html
|
|
A Middle East run by Islamists: Should Western Powers Freak Out? |
|
|
by
|
|
Friday, 02 December 2011 04:11 |
In 39 days, three Arab countries held critical elections, Tunisia (October 23), Morocco (November 25), and Egypt (November 28-9). Although the elections in these countries have different contexts and implications, the three events have several things in common. First, the elections were made possible directly or indirectly by the Arab Awakening of early 2011. Second, before the Awakening, Western powers had labeled these three countries as “moderate,” a euphemism for undemocratic regimes run by a westernized elite. Last, these elections brought to power Islamist parties and groups that the west has labeled “extremists.” So should western governments now freak out?
In the short run, maybe. In the long run, not at all. Here is why.
1. Extremists are more dangerous when they are outside the political system than when they are inside it.
Some radical extremists choose to stay outside the system because they don’t believe in it or perceive it as illegitimate, whether for political or religious reasons. So they stay outside the system and in some cases they undertake work to overthrow it by any means necessary. In contrast, there are other groups and movements that were kept outside the system against their wish. Those groups are likely to adopt radical ways to make their voice heard or until they are invited in. The Islamist and nationalist groups that participated in the recent elections belong to the latter category. Members of these groups have been exiled, imprisoned, and demonized by the Arab regimes since their countries became independent. The Arab Awakening offered them a chance to be part of the political system and they are taking advantage of it. Will it change their extremist ways? Absolutely. Many cases from around the world support this view.
2. Almost all extremist leaders and groups tone down their rhetoric and actions once they are in power
As soon the preliminary results were announced, al-Nahda leader Rachid Ghannouch made a number of reconciliatory announcements telling western governments that his party will honor all previous commitments to foreign governments. He also told Tunisians who voted for his party that his government will not scale back personal freedoms.
To take another example, Hamas was a group shunned by western powers as a terrorist organization until it won the 2006 elections and took charge of Gaza. At that point, it completely stopped the bombings carried out by its members. The movement managed to maintain an unofficial truce with Israel, reducing the number of cross-border rocket attacks. Recently, its political leaders have announced that the movement will give “popular resistance” a chance, signaling shift in military strategy and an acceptance of a political settlement.
3. Even extremists must respect the rules of the game that brought them to power
The Islamist parties are coming to power through the ballot boxes, not bullets. They are taking over the reins after popular uprisings that ousted authoritarian, corrupt regimes. Their success and their rise to power testify to the fact that oppression does not last and that people eventually win over tyranny. Islamist leaders are aware that their ability to hold on to power depends on their ability to earn and maintain the trust of the voters. Moreover, it is unlikely that former political prisoners who were tortured and exiled could easily turn into torturers of political dissenters—their old selves.
4. The people will not tolerate new dictatorships
Despite their impressive electoral accomplishments, Islamist parties cannot take full credit for ending tyrannical rule. The three elections’ results show that voters trust them to lead but not control. In fact, in Tunisia and Morocco, Islamist parties cannot form a government on their own and must enter into alliances with other political parties to secure a governing majority. That political circumstance is a resounding rejection of tyranny, whether in the form of one individual ruling in the name of God or a political party ruling in the name of the voters. Consequently, the new Islamist leaders cannot use religion as a cover, or culture as an excuse to extend their rule beyond the mandate given them by the voters. God did not vote.
5. The new Middle East is not run by the “friends” of the West
In western discourse, extremism has been portrayed as an Arab or Islamic phenomenon. Some went as far as to suggest that Islam is not compatible with representative governance. Consequently, western powers were content with a foreign policy that supported “friendly” and “moderate” leaders who oppressed their peoples. Israel especially, showered Mubarak and other friendly rulers with praise, while poking fun at their societies as undemocratic and prone to extremism. Some Israeli leaders criticized the U.S. for not supporting Mubarak, on the basis that fair elections would bring extremists like the Muslim Brethren to power. This line of reasoning came from a governing coalition that is--by all accounts--the most conservative and extreme in the history of that country. True, all indications show that the new Arab world will be run by conservative Islamist and nationalist parties (albeit democratically elected). But how is that different from the current Israeli governing coalition that consists of the staunchly religious United Torah Judaism and Shas parties, the ultra-nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu and Jewish Home parties, and the super-conservative Likud party. In fact, the current ruling regime is so extreme that many lifelong Jewish activists have voiced their dissatisfaction with its radical agenda:
When, however, laws are passed that stifle free expression, seek to undermine the independence of the judiciary and, in the name of defending a Jewish state, seek to undermine the rights of Arabs and other minorities, then the very democratic character of the state is being eroded. [Abraham H. Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, Huffington Post, 11/30, 2011]
So, if western powers are not freaking out about a right wing government in Israel, why should they freak out about Islamist-run emerging democracies in the Arab world? In fact, elected governments in the Middle East might advance the cause of peace and stability—assuming the theory that democracies don’t go to war with each other hold true.
6. Western regimes overestimated the influence of the liberal elite and underestimated the popularity of Islamist and nationalist movements
Reacting to the results of the elections in Egypt, an Egypt expert told the Washington Post (on December 1) that “in the end, the liberal groups are not popular and not organized.” For years, western commentators argued that in fair and transparent elections, Islamists would not fare well. Although that theory was debunked twice in Iraq under the watch of American troops when Sunni and Shi`i parties outlasted the well-funded secular ones led by Allawi and Chalebi, many continue to argue that the Islamists’ gains can be explained by the fact that the secular parties did not have enough time to prepare. Western politicians (from the left and right) have a curious expectation of the Islamic world. In their eyes, Muslims must all embrace liberal and secular ideas, to the exclusion of religious ideals.
Domestically, however, these Western liberals and conservatives are not alarmed by the rise of religious and conservative politicians. The "shellacking" the Democrats received in 2010 U.S. midterm elections when they lost the House to conservative Republicans can be easily explained away. But the persistence of conservatism in Islamic society alarms them.
The elections in Tunisia, Morocco, and Egypt ought to humble those who hold this double standard. They ought to admit that their attitude is partly to blame for the lack of popularity of liberal and secular groups in Islamic societies. They must have faith in the transformative power of choice that people exert after being faced with brute force that strips them of their dignity and self-respect. The Tunisian, Moroccan, and Egyptian voters are giving the Islamists and centrists a chance to restore their hope in a dignified future. If they work for that, we all ought to support it.
______________
* Prof. SOUAIAIA teaches at the University of Iowa. He is the author of Politics of Appearances. Opinions expressed herein are the author’s, speaking as a citizen on matters of public interest; not speaking for the university or any other organization with which he is affiliated.
|
|
