[statecom] Proposal to Convention Tomorrow: A Proposal to Revise, Expand, and Improve the Green-Rainbow Party Statement on Palestine

[Owen Broadhurst]

O dear -

Folks, if we're going to relive this blistering debate, then I may just have
to take short leave soon after debate begins to find a local watering hole
and have a beer. Maybe, two beers.

I would return, to be sure, but upon disovering a continuation of the debate
even after my one or two beers, I would promptly find a corner to curl up
and nap in, snoring loudly.

Seriously, folks - I would neither withhold consent, nor give consent. I
very simply would not consent to participate in the debate. I've been
screamed at over the phone, flamed in e-mails, called all kinds of nasty
names, and been subjected to several unkind insinuations on the National
Committee  -- because I have been resolute in support for both the
Green-Rainbow Party Statement on Palestine and National Committee Resolution
190. The one committee that I can even stand on the national level, GPAX,
has been under siege because of this.

I'm sooooooooooooooooooooooo sickandtiredofit.

Revisiting this may be worthwhile. I do not know. What I do know: Beyond
this e-mail, I shall have nothing whatsoever to contribute to the
discussion. I'm honestly burned out on it.

I, however, must reflect on some of the language in the proposed resolution.
If this resolution is to see passage during our convention, I would like to
see some of its language either srubbed or thoroughly revised. I comment on
portions that leap out at me below:

"The statement lacks a reason why the party has chosen Israel as a subject
of focus, attacking it for having a Jewish-privilege system while many of
the other countries in the world, and particularly in the Middle East, that
have other ethnic or religious privilege for some of their residents, go
without criticism or even mention."

This goes beyond mere privilege. Israel is a classic apartheid state- and
that happens to be what the Statement addresses. The notion of "Jewish
privilege" is never discussed within the document, even if it has been
discussed in our very own conversations about the subject. What the document
does clearly state is that this party "rejects all apartheid-based
governmental systems", and yes it mentions the most egregious and obscenely
US funded example - the one that is presently engaged in horrific and
terrible crimes against humanity within the Gaza. The state is starving
people to death.

------------------------------------------------------

"The statement does not contain a clause condemning or even regretting the
violence in the region. Section 5 is often misinterpreted as an endorsement
of violence against non-combatants, and demands clarification."

What Section 5 plainly states is that the Palestinian peoples have a right
to defend themselves and a right to resist occupation. Nowhere there may be
found an endorsement of violence. When it is said that it is "often
misinterpreted as an endorsement of violence against non-combatants", I must
ask "often misinterpreted" by whom? My belief is that it is not in fact at
all misinterpreted, but rather deliberately mischaracterized, primarily by
folks who support and endorse violence against Palestinian non-combatants,
as is happening in Gaza.

----------------------------------------------------

"The statement does not acknowledge or recognize the history behind Jewish
presence in the region, one of the key selling-points for Israel."

Here, the statement may well indeed need work. I do not, however, believe we
can address this subject well in any statement or revision of a statement. A
working group of interested party members should be convened to pen the
foundation of a position paper. Please know that I'm not one such interested
person - and I can't apologise for that. I'm off to bed soon.

---------------------------------------------------

"The statement does not address the generations of Israeli nationals now
living in the region. Their fate is left ambiguous and this is offensive and
frightening to many people."

The statement urges equitable sharing of all natural resources and a
democratic system with equal rights for all. I do not view that as an
ambiguous fate, but one people of conscience should all welcome. I certainly
do not know how that might offend, beyond it's quite obviously being
offensive to folks who reject egalitarianism of the commons and democratic
access.

------------------------------------------------------

"...[T]he Green-Rainbow Party... has been labeled by one outlet as "the most
anti-Semetic mainstream political entity in Massachusetts."

I know the outlet, and understand it to be one of the most thoroughly racist
of blogs. GLSEN has been falsely labled pro-paedophile by the Massachusetts
News. This by no means suggests that their position on comprehensive health
education is being at all truly misunderstood, or that their position on
comprehensive health education needs revision.

-----------------------------------------------------

"If we are to tie these loose ends, we will no longer be open to such
criticism and we would be able to better stand on our statement."

We're bold enough to call for divestment, and for that alone shall be
mischaracterized.

-----------------------------------------------------

"1. The Green-Rainbow Party is opposed to all forms of government that favor
or give privileges to one or some groups of residents over other groups. We
take special issue with the government of Israel because it receives the
highest amount of foreign aid per year from
the United States. We see this aid as funding an illegal occupation and as
supporting oppression against non-Jews in Israel. The Green- Rainbow Party
calls for the end of all American military and economic aid to Israel.
Additionally, the Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts supports the
following means to bring pressure to bear on Israel: Divestment initiatives
that seek to withdraw institutional investments from Israel state bonds and
corporations that do business with Israel; academic boycotts of Israeli
academics and academic institutions."

This section of the proposal scrubs any mention of apartheid, and reduces
our particular dispute with Israel's laws regarding land and inheritance -
for instance - to one of the mere privileging of a set of peoples over some
other. What I found appealing and truly revolutionary regarding our
statement was (and is) its acknowledgement of issues beyond occupation and
institutional racism that characterize so very many states. This revision
would make it seem as if we would prioritize a divestment campaign against
Turkey for still occupying Kurdistan, if only Turkey were in receipt of more
US funds. No, the statement delves deeper.

-----------------------------------------

"The Green-Rainbow Party also recognizes the historical significance of the
region of Palestine and Israel for many different people, and supports
initiatives for Jews, as well as other cultures originating in the region,
to return to the region provided that these initiatives do not infringe nor
supersede in any way on the rights of others."

Ron's concern is... bluntly.... stated - but I do share his misgivings.
Support for the Palestinian right of return is based not in a desire to see
some influx of folks whose families have never lived in the region, yet have
but an arguable point of origin historically speaking within it. What the
Palestinian right of return addresses are those who were themselves expelled
via one fashion or some other from the region, or whose immediate families
had been. It addresses families who can still identify where homes and olive
groves once stood.

----------------------------------------

"We do not support the targeting or killing of non-combatants in the region
by any party."

Well, since when did we ever? Yet, I can't take issue with this statement.
Add it. Fine by me.

-----------------------------------------

"1. Party officials will not refer to Israel as merely a fictitious place,
or otherwise arbitrary location. Referring to the region simply as Palestine
is both acceptable and historically accurate. However, Israel is a
UN-recognized body and has people, and possible allies, who identify as
Israeli. This means that in written communications, party officials will not
refer to Israel in quotation marks. To do so is disrespectful, arrogant, and
possibly racist to
people who identify as Israeli. It is also seen as possible allies and
members of the media as immature and unprofessional."

Ron obviously takes issue with this. So do I. Should I refer to "Northern
Ireland" as if Erin's division is legitimate? When I discuss that region, I
very often cite "the occupied counties of Ireland". I took Fianna Fail to
task for recognizing the Hillsborough Pact. I do not believe I disrespect
those who don Orange in this. They, by donning Orange, disrespect Ireland.

-----------------------------------------

All else seems fine at first glance. I shall have nothing more to say
regarding this resolution.



-- 
Owen R. Broadhurst
Candidate for State Representative
Third Hampden District
http://www.owenbroadhurst.org