Mondoweiss Online Newsletter

 NOVANEWS

• ‘Fast Times in Palestine’ to sponsor OccupyAIPAC

• Consequences of an attack on Iran are no joke

• Finkelstein’s prescription for a two-state solution is not realistic

• SJP members accosted, barred from attending Israeli solider event at George Washington University

• Responding to commenters on recent bannings

• Journalists Mike Murphy of NBC and Donna Brazile of CNN to speak at conference promoting Iran war

• The Israeli case for war in ‘The New York Times’

• Linah Alsaafin: My grandfather passed away and I was denied the right to see him

• War on Drugs, War on Terror, War on the Poor

• US officials sharpen Iran rhetoric as AIPAC comes to town

‘Fast Times in Palestine’ to sponsor OccupyAIPAC

Mar 01, 2012

Pamela Olson

At last year’s Move Over AIPAC event, I read from my newly-published book Fast Times in Palestine, a memoir about my transformation from a typical uninformed American to a Ramallah-based journalist and foreign press coordinator for a Palestinian presidential candidate. Tony Karon of TIME Magazine called it “A charming book brimming with tension and tragedy, but also with the humor, warmth, everyday foibles and irrepressible hopes of a people determined to live free.”

This year I will sponsor Occupy AIPAC by donating 20% of all income from the book for the month of March to the organizers at CodePink.

During the conference, on March 3 – 4, I’ll also offer the Kindle version of the book for FREE.

Everyone is encouraged to download a free copy. If you find it to be a useful way to introduce friends and family members to the beauty of Palestine and the almost indescribable injustice of occupation, you’re welcome to suggest or gift it through the rest of March, which will result in a larger donation to Occupy AIPAC. The eBook is currently only $2.99.

Consequences of an attack on Iran are no joke

Mar 01, 2012

Marsha B. Cohen

This post originally appeared on Lobelog:

A grim joke made the rounds in late 2002 and early 2003, in the lead-up to the US invasion of Iraq. The version I recall went something like this:

President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney go into a Texas bar. Over a couple of beers they plan the invasion of Iraq, taking out Saddam Hussein and taking control of Iraq’s vast oil reserves. The big question, though, is how Americans might react to their starting another war, with victory still elusive in Afghanistan. They decide to do an impromptu sampling of public opinion, and invite an average, all-American looking guy standing at the bar to join them for a friendly drink.

“What would you think of us invading Iraq and taking over their oil fields, if you knew that 30,000 Iraqis and one American bicycle mechanic would be killed if we do it?” Bush asks.

The fellow slowly sips his beer, his brow furrowed. He mulls the question and looks troubled. Finally he asks, “Why should an American bicycle mechanic have to die?”

Cheney slaps the table and grins triumphantly at Bush. “I told you no one would give a damn about the 30,000 Iraqis!”

A decade later, no one seems to give a damn about Iranian lives either.

The U.S. legacy in Iraq

As we now know, far more than 30,000 Iraqis and one American have died since the US invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003. The number of documented Iraqi civilian deaths from violence since the onset of the “Second Iraq War” now totals between 105,000-115,000, according to the continuously updated Iraq Body Count database. It also notes that according to the WikiLeaks Iraq war logs, the figure may be 13,750 higher still.  Official Department of Defense statistics as of mid-December, as compiled by Margaret Griffis at Antiwar.com, reveal that 4484 members of the US military deaths and 1487 private military contractors have lost their lives since the war began, as well as 319 “Coalition” troops, 348 journalists and 448 academics. Estimates of the number of Americans wounded range from an official count of 33,000 to estimates of over 100,000.

Iraqi physicians are seeing an upsurge in cancers and birth defects, which they blame on the usage of depleted uranium in the shells and bombs used by US and British forces in the 1991 Iraq war and the 2003 invasion. An estimated 300 tons of depleted uranium were used to attack Iraq in the First Gulf War. Abdulhaq Al-Ani, co-author of Uranium in Iraq: The Poisonous Legacy of the Iraq Wars, has been researching the health effects of depleted uranium weaponry on Iraq’s civilian population since 1991 and explained in an interview with Al Jazeera that the effects of depleted uranium on the human body don’t even begin to manifest until 5-6 years after exposure. Al-Ani points to a spike in Iraqi cancer rates in Iraq in 1996-1997 and 2008-2009.

Dr. Ahmad Hardan, who has served as a special scientific adviser to the World Health Organization, the United Nations and the Iraqi Health Ministry, has been monitoring the effects of depleted uranium exposure on adults and children, which include multiple cancers and serious birth defects. He told reporter Lawrence Smallman that “Depleted uranium has a half life of 4.7 billion years and that means thousands upon thousands of Iraqi children will suffer for tens of thousands of years to come.” Leukemia has become the third most common cancer throughout Iraq, with children under 15 especially vulnerable. “This is what I call terrorism,” he said.

The BBC reports that babies born in Fallujah now have 13 times the rate of congenital heart deformities than European-born infants. While visiting Iraq, World Affairs editor John Simpson was told many times that women in Fallujah have been advised not to bear children. The director of the Afghan Depleted Uranium and Recovery Fund, Dr. Daud Miraki, has found that increasing numbers of infants in eastern and southeastern Afghanistan are being born without eyes or limbs, and have tumors protruding from their mouths and eyes. The Pentagon denies any connection with the US military’s use of depleted uranium, even though (or perhaps because) these same effects are endangering veterans returning to the US from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nevertheless, whether from the right, left or the center, the potential “consequences” of military strikes (a euphemism for war) against Iran are being assessed almost exclusively on the basis of the potential impact on Israel, the US and Europe: a spike in the price of oil wreaking havoc in the global economy–Hezbollah launching missile strikes from Lebanon into Israel and carrying out acts of terrorism against “soft western targets”–rather than the disastrous consequences for Iran, its neighbors and the global ecosystem.

One exception is a 114 page “Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Development Facilities,” produced in 2009 for the Center for International and Strategic Studies. It devotes all of two pages (90-91) to the human and environmental human catastrophe that would result just from an attack on the Iranian nuclear power plant in Bushehr:

Any strike on the Bushehr Nuclear Reactor will cause the immediate death of thousands of people living in or adjacent to the site, and thousands of subsequent cancer deaths or even up to hundreds of thousands depending on the population density along the contamination plume.

The authors also warn that “Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE will be heavily affected by the radionuclides.” (Are the Arab states of the Gulf who supposedly are so eager for Israel to contain Iran’s regional ambitions aware of this?)

The ever-smirking Israeli Minister of Defense, Ehud Barak, has calculated that the casualties of a war with Iran could be limited to fewer than 500. “There won’t be 100,000 dead, not 10,000 dead nor 1,000 dead. Israel will not be destroyed,” Barak said reassuringly during  a November radio interview quoted by the Washington Post. “If everyone just goes into their houses, there won’t be 500 dead, either,” he said.

Barak means Israelis. As for Iranians, who’s counting? Who cares?

The human cost of attacking Iran

No one is talking about the harm that “surgical air strikes” against “suspected Iranian nuclear facilities” with GBU-28 “bunker-buster” bombs, which derive their ability to penetrate concrete and earth fromdepleted uranium, would inflict on 74 million Iranians, nearly a quarter of whom are under the age of 14 and under and half of whom are under the age of 30. (Where are those self-designated “pro-life” voices that should be expressing outrage? Or does “the right to life” evaporate as soon as a fetus exits the womb?)

No worries are being expressed about the release of radioactive materials into the biosphere of  Central Asia (and by eventual extension, the entire earth). If the depleted uranium in the bombs comes into contact with radioactive nuclear materials present in the targeted nuclear research sites–nearly all of which operate under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supervision–the potential for disaster would be magnified exponentially.

Israeli Military Intelligence Chief Major General Aviv Kochavi grimly told the hawkish Herziliya Conference recently that Iran possesses more than 4 tons of low-grade enriched uranium as well as almost 100 kilograms of uranium enriched at 20%. If true, is it really a good idea to send these radioactive materials spewing into the air and water of Central Asia and beyond? Is it any wonder that Russia, China and India–all whom are much closer geographically to Iran, as well as downwind of the direction in which radiation and toxin-tainted winds would initially blow–are the UN Security Council members most opposed to attacking Iran?

Nor is anyone questioning the wisdom of dropping unprecedented numbers of 5000 lb. “bunker busters” capable of penetrating 100 feet of earth or 20 feet of concrete into the bowels of an already earthquake-prone region. No one seems to care about the irreparable and uncontainable environmental damage that could be done to miles of Iranian coastline: the adjacent Caspian Sea to the north, the Arabian Sea to the south, and the Persian Gulf to the west. What about the permanent damage to the underground aquifers of Central Asia, where water is already scarce? If fracking for natural gas can render US drinking water flammable, imagine what pounding some of the most plentiful natural gas fields with bombs could do.

The unforeseeable consequences

Prognosticating the full extent of the damage that could and would be inflicted upon Iran and upon Iranians is difficult to impossible. No one outside of top security circles can even guess the number of targets of an Israeli and/or US attack (the BBC suggests five in addition to Bushehr). Other variables include the quantity or capacity of the weaponry that would be employed, whether Israel plans on using nuclear weapons, whether so-called “precision surgical strikes” reached or missed their intended targets, all of which would affect the scale of “collateral damage” to human beings, infrastructure, homes and apartments, schools, mosques and World Heritage sites as a consequence of “bomb-bomb-bombing” Iran’s suspected nuclear research facilities.

Almost assuredly an attack on facilities buried deep within the earth would utilize “bunker busting” guided  bomb units (GBUs) that gain their power to penetrate from depleted uranium. The cost in lives, injuries, and long-term dangers to the health of civilians, including genetic damage to unborn future generations from toxins and radioactive materials in the depleted uranium bombs dropped and nuclear materials leaked is also incalculable.

Is war worth it?

Contrary to misleading media reports, there is no evidence that Iran is presently attempting or even planning to build a bomb. But even if there were, an Israeli and/or US attack would merely postpone its development for a few years, and perhaps even spur and speed up nuclear weapons research for deterrence.

Returning to public opinion polling, a recent Pew Research Center telephone survey (Feb. 8-12) asked a sampling of 1500 adults in all 50 states, “How much, if anything, have you read or heard about the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program?”

38% said “A lot”

39% said “A little”

23% said “Nothing at all”

Yet asked whether it was more important “to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action” or “to avoid a military conflict with Iran even if it means they may develop nuclear weapons,” 30% of respondents prioritized avoiding a military conflict, while 58% said military action might be necessary (20% more than the number who had said they “knew a lot” about the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program). This isn’t a fluke: the same Pew survey asking the same question of different respondents Sept. 30-Oct. 4, 2009 found that only 41% said they “knew a lot” while 61% would approve of military action–the same 20% differential.

(In the most recent survey, respondents were also asked whether the US should support or oppose an attack on Iran by Israel “to stop its nuclear weapons program.” 39% said the US should support Israeli military action, 5% said the US should oppose Israeli military action, and just over half (51%) said the US should “stay neutral.”)

But what if the questions were framed differently? What if the pollster were to ask, “Would you approve or disapprove of Israel or the US delaying progress in Iranian nuclear research (not necessarily in pursuit of a nuclear weapon) by 3-5 years at most, by dropping spent uranium bunker-busting bombs on a country of 74 million people, a quarter of them younger than 14, if tens or even hundreds of thousands might die and perhaps millions more might suffer from genetic damage causing birth defects and cancers for generations to come?

And what if the follow-up question was, “If depleted uranium bunker busters were unable to penetrate Iranian underground facilities where nuclear research was allegedly taking place, much of it under the supervision of the IAEA, would you approve of Israel using nuclear weapons that would magnify death and destruction a hundredfold and result in what some might call ‘a holocaust’”?

Frankly, I have no idea what the pro and con percentages would be to questions asked in this way. But it’s time for the pollsters gauging public opinion to speak more forthrightly about what the real options–and the real consequences–of attacking Iran are. They can start by shedding the sanitized references to “military action” and “surgical strikes” and calling them what they are–acts of war that will inflict death and destruction on tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of Iranians. Iranians like the characters in the Oscar-winning film “A Separation,” who love their children and want the best for them, who worry about their aging parents, who struggle to make ends meet in the face of high unemployment and economic stress. As the film’s director Asghar Farhadi stated in his acceptance speech for 2011’s Best Foreign Language Film:

At a time of talk of war, intimidation and aggression is exchanged between politicians, the name of their county, Iran, is spoken here through her glorious culture, a rich and ancient culture that has been hidden under the heavy dust of politics.

Should that heavy dust be poisoned with toxic radioactive contaminants from depleted uranium and perhaps even nuclear fallout? War on Iran is no joke.

Finkelstein’s prescription for a two-state solution is not realistic

Mar 01, 2012

David Samel

One of the issues raised in the controversy over Norman Finkelstein’s recent video interview is the feasibility of the two-state solution. While the creation of a Palestinian State in Gaza and the West Bank alongside Israel remains the purported basis of a settlement among much of the international community, many are now questioning whether it is still possible. After decades of Israel’s deliberate creation of “facts on the ground,” primarily the illegal settlement of hundreds of thousands of its Jewish citizens throughout the West Bank, can a Palestinian State still emerge free from a large number of permanent residents owing allegiance to, and expecting protection from, a foreign state? Finkelstein emphatically answers in the affirmative, and has presented his case in lectures around the world.

A brief preface. I have greatly admired Finkelstein for many years, and cannot think of anyone else outside the Palestinian community who has devoted more time and energy to the cause of their freedom. He is sincerely taking what he feels to be the best strategic position to mitigate the human suffering he has witnessed firsthand. He is in a position to make the most genuine case for the two-state solution, and he does not come close. At recent videotaped lectures he gave in Glasgow and Edinburgh , his discussion of the settler problem contains serious flaws and shortcomings.

Finkelstein begins talking about the two-state solution at about an hour and a half into his lectures. First, he offers a legal/logical/moral imperative for recognizing the State of Israel as a simultaneous condition for demanding Palestinian rights guaranteed under international law. Mondoweiss published three responses, including my own, to this contention, but rather than repeat that discussion, let’s turn to Finkelstein’s insistence that the two-state solution remains viable, and that a peace settlement along the lines of the “international consensus” may still be achieved with a little creativity.

Here is his prescription for dealing with the settlers. First, Finkelstein estimates the number of these settlers at the very low end of 500,000. Netanyahu has stated that there are 650,000 settlers and the actual figure may even be higher, but Finkelstein goes with only 500,000.

Second, Finkelstein claims that if just 1.9% of Occupied Palestine is transferred to Israel, 63% of the 500,000 settlers reside within that 1.9% and would not have to leave their homes and communities to leave Palestine. At his lectures, he displays a map, presented by a Palestinian negotiating team in 2008, depicting this 1.9% of the OPT. The 1.9% consists mostly of numerous territorial segments that appear sort of mushroom-shaped, with narrow access roads leading a few miles from the Green Line to a settlement. The map also shows a few land areas that are presently part of Israel’s internationally recognized territory that would constitute an equal amount of territory that can become part of Palestine in the swap. Finkelstein concludes that about 300,000 of the 500,000 settlers will be accounted for in this 1.9% swap, leaving about 200,000 who must be evacuated.

Third, he states that many settlers are not ideological fanatics but moved to the OPT because of financial incentives offered by the government, and similarly could be induced to move back within the Green Line. He estimates that only 5000 to 10,000 settlers might refuse to move out of ideological fervor. Finkelstein believes that compelling the removal of this number would be relatively easy. Israel could merely impose a deadline when it will withdraw its armed forces, and these five to ten thousand ideological settlers will comply with an evacuation order out of fear of being left alone and unprotected.

Finkelstein makes several errors and omissions in his analysis, but this last one is the best place to start. His estimate of 5000 to 10,000 recalcitrant settlers seems absurdly low. Even if one accepts his minimal figure of 500,000 total settlers, and 200,000 who would not be “swapped,” his numbers correspond to only 2.5% to 5% of these 200,000 settlers being ideological and resistant to financial incentives for relocation. According to Finkelstein, 95+% would leave voluntarily. I don’t know what polls he relies upon to support this improbable figure, but a recent Hebrew University poll shows a much higher rate of settler opposition to evacuation.

In 2010, 21% of settlers agreed that they would not only refuse to move, they would use all means, including force of arms, to resist. This position is on the increase, up from 15% in 2005. This 21% represents the hardest of the hard-core; surely many more would also refuse to move, but would not presently commit to force of arms to stay. It looks like Finkelstein could be off by a factor of ten, and that 50,000 to 100,000 settlers would refuse all offers of financial compensation, and would require massive military force to budge them from their illegal residence in the West Bank.

Finkelstein’s plan to remove these stubborn settlers, whether 5000 to 10,000 or a great deal more, is to assume they are “cowards” who would turn tail and refuse to face life amongst Palestinians without IDF protection. It’s amusing to ridicule one’s enemies as cowards, but it’s often inaccurate. Bill Maher lost his gig at ABC a decade ago for sensibly pointing out that the 9/11 hijackers were not “cowards.” These fanatical settlers may be greedy, racist, violent, deluded, and a host of other adjectives, but they also are well-armed with both firearms and the certain conviction that God promised the Jewish people the entire land of historical Palestine.

Finkelstein’s “evidence” of the settlers’ cowardice consists of a quote from the former head of the Shin Bet, who said, of the 400 Hebron settlers, that they would quickly run back behind the Green Line if threatened with the loss of IDF protection. Does Finkelstein accept the word of Shin Bet directors about anything else? Even if this questionable source was absolutely sincere in this instance, he was merely voicing his own generalized prediction of the conduct of others. The assumption that many thousands of ideological lunatics with guns will be frightened to abandon God’s plan for Jewish sovereignty over Judea and Samaria is not a realistic basis to reach a peace agreement. Is there anything more dangerous than a person with a gun and the unshakeable conviction that God wants him/her to use it?

Of course, the IDF could physically force the settlers from their illegal outposts, but that might be politically impossible, and even physically impossible if the numbers are significantly greater than 5000-10,000 as they almost surely are. These die-hard settlers are not concentrated in one or two geographical areas, but dot the landscape all over the West Bank. Enormous resources would be required to force them to move without outbreaks of lethal violence. Finkelstein’s conclusion that it would be simple to empty the future Palestinian State of Israeli citizens is absurdly optimistic.

While Finkelstein does not explicitly propose it, Israel theoretically could strip, or threaten to strip, these recalcitrant settlers of their citizenship and have them assume Palestinian citizenship, as Jewish citizens of Palestine. However, there is no realistic chance that these fanatics would accept being subject to Palestinian governmental authority. It is not difficult to foresee them use their weapons in “self-defense,” leading to a armed conflict and Israeli military intervention to protect these “courageous Jewish pioneers” from massacre by the “Arab hordes.” In short, leaving behind ideological settlers would be a recipe for conflict and disaster.

There are other flaws in Finkelstein’s analysis as well. There is no reason to believe that Israel would ever be willing to accept the disjointed, mushroom-shaped territories extending into the West Bank, or that it would swap those areas presently within the Green Line that were designated by the Palestinian negotiators. Finkelstein concedes that it would be political suicide for any Israeli leader to accept this map, and urges us all to apply political pressure to somehow make it feasible.

Next, who would pay the enormous price tag for relocating about 200,000 settlers who supposedly would agree to move with generous compensation? The compensation cost alone could easily run into tens of billions of dollars or more. And how would Israel accommodate this huge influx? Enormous new housing projects would have to be designed and constructed. Where? How long would it take? How much would that cost? Who would pay?

Finally, is there any Israeli political will to force any two-state settlement at all? Somehow, it has failed to materialize until now. Theoretically, a majority of Israelis oppose the settlements, but the settler population and their supporters from within Israel have been politically able to obstruct any movement to restrict settlement activity. The country is certainly becoming more right wing, and that will continue in the foreseeable future, as there is a much higher birth rate among the ideological and/or religious Israelis than there is among the secular population.

Norman Finkelstein, while expressing certainty that the two-state solution remains achievable, with only this last consideration (Israeli political will) to be overcome with international pressure, doesn’t address these thorny questions. Even worse, his vision for the future is dependant on an unrealistically optimistic view of the ease with which Israel’s illegal settler population can be re-settled within its internationally recognized boundaries. To briefly recap, he starts with the lowest estimation of total settlers, assumes that the Israeli map could be acceptably redrawn with lots of tiny fingers extending into a foreign state, assumes near unanimous compliance with evacuation orders when 25-50% would probably refuse, and neglects to ponder numerous other obstacles to a two-state solution.

Finkelstein’s argument that the law requires recognition of Israel is not nearly as clearcut as he insists. He claims that Israel’s existence is a legally recognized fact, but Israel exists only as a Jewish State and has no legal right to insist on the kind of ethno-religious favoritism that such definition entails. And the law is not straightforward, but a tangled web of conflicting claims. The UN Partition Plan “created” Israel on 55% of the land, but that percentage increased to 78% by the 1949 cease fire. That’s what is presently known as the Green Line, Israel’s generally recognized boundary.

What is Israel’s legal claim to that part of its internationally-recognized territory outside the 1947 UN map? Wasn’t that territory acquired by war, just like the territories conquered in 1967? Also, the right of return of all Palestinian refugees is enshrined in international law, but if exercised, it would signify the end of Israel’s Jewish majority and its Jewish Statehood. What would happen to the Israel that Finkelstein claims is an entity that deserves legal recognition? It would disintegrate by enforcement of the law! So “the law” both requires recognition of Israel and sows the seeds of its downfall. The legal claims of all parties cannot be reconciled in one consistent, coherent manner.

Perhaps most importantly, Israel has withstood the illegality of its settlement project for over 40 years. What would suddenly make it vulnerable to international public pressure? And if, as Finkelstein agrees, such pressure is required to budge Israelis from their current obstinacy, why would an appeal to law – hopelessly tangled and subject to varying interpretations and jurisdictions – be any more likely to be successful than an appeal to the principle of equality for all regardless of ethnic or religious background?

Israel and its powerful supporters worldwide have legions of lawyers ready to obfuscate the law and explain why the illegal settlements are actually legal, the illegal occupation is legal, the illegal acquisition of territory by war is legal, etc. These arguments may be countered by more reasoned analysis from the other side, but submitting hyper-technical legal arguments to the whims of the public is not a sure thing. An appeal to the simple but undeniable principle of equality might be more successful. It would be more difficult for Israel to argue that in the 21st century, it remains acceptable to discriminate against native-born inhabitants based on their ancestry, ethnicity, and religion.

We’re now 45 years into the occupation and 500,000-750,000 illegal Israeli Jewish settlers blanket the land supposedly designated for a future Palestinian State. How many more years and more settlers will it take before Finkelstein concludes that the 2ss is now impossible? How many more dead-ends and false starts and fruitless negotiations in the peace process before we all realize it is not going to happen? His position mirrors those sincere liberal Zionists who say that unless Israel relinquishes its control over millions of stateless people, and/or unless it provides equal rights to its non-Jewish minority population, Israel will cease to be a democracy. Exactly what are they waiting for to make this pronouncement? Forty-five years of military rule over the disenfranchised, and 64 years of blatant, government-led discrimination is not enough? These people will be saying the same thing in 20 years, perhaps in 50 years. Finkelstein is making a similar mistake. The doors and windows of the two-state solution are all shut and locked tight, and it’s time to look for a new house.

SJP members accosted, barred from attending Israeli solider event at George Washington University

Mar 01, 2012

Adam Akkad

On February 29th, 2012 Israeli Reservist Sergeant Benjamin Anthony brought his speaking tour ‘Our Soldiers Speak’ to my university, The George Washington University. The event was brought to my attention two days prior through a tweet from @CampusSpeakers1, who has been seemingly tasked with publicizing the event as she tweeted to scores of people advertizing the event. From 6:58 PM on February 26, 2012 until 10:58 AM February 27 @CampusSpeakers1 did nothing but advertize the event.

Screen shot of @CampusSpeakers1′s tweet to me

Not only was I notified of the event, so was GWU’s SJP

It is worth mentioning that I have never interacted with @CampusSpeakers1 on Twitter before. I did not reply to their tweet either. I approached members of our university’s SJP and we decided we would attend. The day before the event, SJP launched Israeli Apartheid Week and hosted Mr. Bill Fletcher as our introductory speaker. Members of GWU Hillel and other pro-Israel student groups attended, asked questions and discussed their views with Mr. Fletcher and members of SJP during the IAW event. We headed to Mr. Anthony’s talk in the same spirit, but were not welcomed in the same manner.

As we approached the venue in which the event was to be held, a huge sign donning the George Washington University emblem greeted us, signifying that it was an official GWU event. There was also a banner that read ‘Meor.’ I can only assume that Meor, a Jewish organization (http://meor.org), was in charge of holding the event. Once reaching the doors of the venue, I, and about a dozen others, were denied entry after two of us were heard speaking Arabic. An orthodox Jewish woman inquired about our presence in Hebrew to another figure standing at the door. Immediately after, a man approached us claiming that the event was closed and that we were not to be allowed in. I responded by showing them the tweets I and GWU SJP received notifying us of the event. Sgt. Benjamin Anthony advertised his events on his personal Twitter account stating clearly that they are open to all students. Why was his event at GWU any different?

Soon after, the organizers called the University Police Department (UPD) on us for doing nothing more than attempting to attend their event. The organizers told UPD that the event was private and that they had a strict guest list. They (the organizers) demanded that UPD remove us away from not only the venue, but also the hallway. They referred to us as ‘protesters,’ yet could provide no proof that we were coming to protest. They then demanded the keys to the doors so that they may lock them and prevent us from entering, to which UPD complied.

As we stood outside of the event, a Jewish attendee of the event began speaking to me. When I expressed my outrage over being discriminated against, the man replied by saying, “Different religious and ethnic groups have the right to discriminate against each other.” The man, who was allowed entrance to the event, also told me that he was not notified of the event, did not register and did not know who the organizers of the event were.

UPD asked for a list of attendees so as to confirm that the event was indeed closed but the organizers could not provide a list. Moreover, UPD pointed out that in order to hold an event in the University 75% or more of the attendees must be University students. The organizers could not account for their attendees and the UPD remained until the end of the event in order to check ID’s and confirm that university policy was not violated. Unfortunately, we were not able to stay until the end of the event to find out the outcome. From what I saw of the audience, however, I have no doubt that university policy was indeed violated.

To add onto this blatant display of discrimination, a male attendee (who was not affiliated with GWU), shoved a female student as she approached him inquiring why she was barred from entering. UPD was notified and he was immediately escorted off of campus and banned from returning. Even after being pressed multiple times by UPD, organizers still could not provide evidence to support their claim that the event was closed. When I explained to the organizers that I had been invited to the event, one responded by saying, “I am confused, that is not how the group operates.” In other words, transparency and inclusivity are not characteristic of the organization holding the event. A student who was allowed into the event was removed a few minutes into the lecture for simply being unfamiliar to those attending. This student happened to be Lebanese Christian.

The last time I felt this humiliated was at Qalandia checkpoint in the occupied West Bank. This goes to show that the secrecy and discrimination that are characteristic of Zionism are by no means limited to those suffering under Israeli occupation and apartheid. This is a direct consequence of the privilege and ethnic hierarchy by which Zionism operates. The difference in this scenario is as a student of The George Washington University and a citizen of the United States I do have enforceable rights and means of holding these individuals accountable. In the spirit of Israeli Apartheid Week, we demand justice.

This post originally appeared on adamakkad.com.

Responding to commenters on recent bannings

Mar 01, 2012

Philip Weiss

Following the announcement of our new comments policy, there’s been considerable criticism of Adam Horowitz and me for a lack of transparency in banning decisions. We never explained commenter bannings in the past, but given the celebrity of Richard Witty and Jeffrey Blankfort, both of whom I consider friends, we owe readers an explanation. Adam and I discussed it yesterday, and I apologize that it’s taken this long.

We preserved Witty’s presence here over the years because he was a stand-in for American Zionist opinion and there was value in having his voice. But in the end the moderators agreed that Richard had become a troll, pulling the conversation away from the thread, repeating arguments, causing moderators too much work.

As for Jeff Blankfort, Jeff has long provided some of the keenest analysis of the Israel lobby and how it works. I’ve relied on him for guidance in this area—just as Occupy AIPAC will feature Jeff as a speaker at the gathering this weekend, a session I look forward to attending. One thing we disagreed on and that became an issue here was the claim of collective American “Jewish responsibility” for support for Israel– when in fact there are many Jews who are not Zionists, including Adam and me and Jeff Blankfort, too. Also Jeff sought to have a discussion of the Jewish historical role in the rise of the Nazis in Germany here. As we have made clear, this is not a subject we want any part of. It generally leads to anti-semitism and Holocaust denial, which we won’t tolerate on the site, and unquestionably hurts our ability to reach out.

We have big (and transgressive) goals on this site: to change the discourse on Israel and Palestine so as to change the politics of the conflict (and stop a war with Iran). We don’t have the energy for distractions. I continue to rely on Jeff’s thinking about the workings of the lobby. I hope to feature his work here in the future, if and when he’s open to it.

Journalists Mike Murphy of NBC and Donna Brazile of CNN to speak at conference promoting Iran war

Mar 01, 2012

Philip Weiss

Brazile

AIPAC’s list of confirmed speakers for its upcoming policy conference includes some network journalists– notably liberal commentators Paul Begala of CNN and Donna Brazile of CNN and ABC. Brazile formerly headed the Voting Rights Institute. I wonder what she’s going to say about Palestinian rights. And there’s Mike Murphy of NBC, a Republican strategist hired by the network as a political analyst.

All these folks will be speaking at a gathering that will be pushing war on Iran… As the Forward reports (thanks Annie Robbins):

A proposed Senate resolution, supported by the pro-Israel lobby, would shift America’s red line in dealing with Iran from preventing the Islamic Republic’s acquisition of nuclear weapons to stopping it before it achieves “nuclear capabilities.”

The resolution, now gaining signatures in the Senate, will be the legislative centerpiece of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee as it convenes for its annual Washington conference, to take place in early March.

What are the networks’ ethics policies on this sort of appearance?

Oh and AIPAC denied my application for credentials.

The Israeli case for war in ‘The New York Times’

Mar 01, 2012

David Bromwich

Obama on telephone, Feb 13, White House photo by Pete Souza

An extraordinary op-ed in the New York Times today is entitled “Israel’s Last Chance to Strike Iran.” Written by Amos Yadlin, a former chief of Israeli military intelligence, the article deepens the impression that members of Israel’s security establishment have a faucet at the Times which they can turn on at pleasure. Thus on the eve of Netanyahu’s AIPAC visit, Yadlin observes with alarm that Israel cannot bomb Iran as effectively as the U.S. can; yet if President Obama waits much longer, Israel will be forced to act alone. Israel, however, is willing follow Obama’s schedule provided it gets “ironclad American assurance” that he will bomb when a moment arrives on which the two countries have agreed in advance.
This is discussed in public, in a famous American newspaper. For what purpose if not to soften American opinion? The New York Times is helping one more war after Iraq and Afghanistan–a war against Iran–to become for us an everyday fact, an
understood arrangement.
A similar proposal of war was floated in the Times a little over three weeks ago, in an op-ed entitled “To Weaken Iran, Start with Syria.” The author, Efraim Halevy, was director of the Mossad from 1998-2002. He asked his American readers to recognize the good sense of his idea that the U.S. combine with Russia to overthrow Assad and install a mutually agreeable puppet regime in Syria. Like the follow-up suggestion by Yadlin, that earlier argument for an American attack on Israel’s behalf was presented in the language of emergency. It was an opportunity that the U.S. must seize or else–an “option” (as Halevy called it) which “we do not have the luxury of ignoring.”
The high strategy op-eds by luminaries of a foreign power, appearing so close together in the Times, deal with superficially different subjects but they are by no means incompatible. The first asks us to see an attack on Syria as a logical way station to the bombing of Iran. The second concedes that, given “ironclad American assurance,” Israel may be willing to wait a little longer before joining the U.S. against Iran. (Long enough maybe for the fall of Assad.)
Meanwhile President Obama continues a policy of minimal explanation concerning Israel and Iran. He gave a hostage to fortune and contradicted warnings by his
secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs when he
said that the U.S. was marching “lockstep” with Israel on Iran. Characteristically, as three years of his presidency have shown, Obama works by tacking and co-opting. He goes some distance to meet the most dangerous of demands, and seems not to have understood the impression of weakness which this pattern has infallibly conveyed. His counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu, by contrast, moves rapidly, emphatically, and unembarrassed in the medium of American politics. He has the assistance of the jingo media of the far right but also the mainstream media. Is it wrong to suspect that Obama is entering his next encounter in a usual state of mind for him–passive, wishful, and ill-advised?

Linah Alsaafin: My grandfather passed away and I was denied the right to see him

Mar 01, 2012

Today in Palestine

Must Read My Grandfather Passed Away and I was Denied the Right to See Him, Linah Alsaafin

I’ll never forget the hilarious conversation we had back in the summer of 2005. The extended family went to the beach that day. As the sun went down, my father ordered anargilah, and whenever he’d break to continue a conversation, I’d take the pipe and draw a few puffs, much to the indignation of my mother. Seeing how my dad obviously didn’t object his fourteen-year-old daughter smoking an argilah, she appealed to my grandfather, who was sitting right next to me and pretended not to notice. At her request, however, he jumped into action.

“Linah, I’m not satisfied with how you look,” his voice carried over half of Gaza’s beach. “You’re nothing but skin and bones. At your age, you should be bursting with life! A long time ago, young women used to be like this —” he made curvy shapes with his large hands — “and like this!” Another curvy motion. “You don’t eat enough. You have the body of a child.” He was really getting into his stride now, as I sank lower and lower in my seat, my cheeks flaming, highly aware of the stares from other people on nearby tables. “You should eat meat! Lots of meat! And fruits! Meat and fruit! And an assorted variety of nuts!” I wondered if the pilot in the F-16 plane above could see Sido’s wild gesticulations or possibly hear his voice. “Eat! Eat meat, fruits and nuts! Eat, so your breasts can grow! But smoking? NEVER!”