Showing posts with label The Middle East. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Middle East. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 14, 2020

Challenging American Imperialism and the Deadly Hegemonic Politics of Empire in Both Academia and the Larger Political World

https://truthout.org/…/as-tensions-with-iran-escalate-it-is…

Op-Ed
Education & Youth


As Tensions With Iran Escalate, It Is Time to Challenge Empire in the Classroom
by Shirin Vossoughi, Roozbeh Shirazi 
and Sepehr Vakil
January 13, 2020
Truthout


PHOTO: Families of children from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Yemen, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and other parts of the region want U.S. schools to support their children by refusing narratives that normalize empire, dehumanize whole populations and pave the way for endless wars. Fat Camera / Getty Images

For educators, war is one of the most difficult topics to discuss within our classrooms. And yet, with the recent U.S. assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iraqi senior military leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and other Iraqis, the threat of imminent war is now forcefully part of the everyday thoughts of many students.

For families from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Yemen, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and other parts of the region, the weight of these anxieties has been carried for decades.

As Iranian educators and scholars who attended U.S. public schools, and as parents of young Iranian-American children, we see an urgent need to support our young people, and to refuse narratives that normalize empire, dehumanize whole populations and thus pave the way for endless wars.

Students Carry a Heavy Burden

It is crucial for educators to acknowledge the emotional and psychological burden that Iranian, Iraqi and other Middle Eastern students are carrying, and to stand in solidarity with them. This means recognizing that when classrooms operate according to business as usual while families brace themselves for impending war, the asymmetrical violence of imperialism is normalized in the eyes of children. It means anticipating and actively working to address anti-Muslim racism and bullying — not only through supporting students targeted by such violence, but also crucially through explicit anti-racist work with those who perpetrate harm, including, at times, our fellow teachers. Every single student in our K-12 classrooms has grown up in a post-9/11 context, in which the demonization of Arab, Muslim, Iranian and South Asian communities has been taken for granted. This demonization is fueled by longstanding representations of the Middle East as inherently threatening, and of the U.S. as perpetually innocent.

Solidarity with young people also means openly discussing world events, premised on an understanding of children and youth as thinkers with agency who are actively making sense of the world. Young children in our communities are feeling the weight of stress on their parents, and learning to make sense of what these events mean for their identities and families. Our communities are also feeling enormous grief and anger in response to the tragically lethal strike by Iran of a civilian airliner carrying many Iranian students and families traveling with young children. Many students are navigating deeply complicated and emotionally laden political debates and legacies of historical trauma within their own families and communities. Educators, particularly those without roots in the region, must remember to listen and eschew simple assumptions about what “those people” think or feel about any singular political event.

Normalizing Empire

“Empire” is not part of our everyday lexicon as educators. For some, the term is at odds with the dominant image of the U.S. as a global force for good. Yet, one cannot understand the political and economic might of the U.S. without contextualizing it as a settler-colonial state, with more than 800 military bases around the world, and with a history of intervention in Latin America, Africa and Asia. To define the U.S. outside of this history is also to discount and erase the perspectives of the vast majority of the world’s population who contend with the reverberations of American power every day.

Every student in our classrooms has grown up in a post-9/11 context, in which the demonization of Arab, Muslim, Iranian and South Asian communities has been taken for granted.

Recent Iranian history provides a case in point. In 1953, the CIA worked with British intelligence to overthrow the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh, after he nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Nationalization upended half a century of the British taking $0.84 of every petrodollar from the sale of Iranian oil. The overthrow of Mossadegh also resulted in the U.S. reinstating Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whose rule was characterized by mass political repression, extensive corruption and widening social inequalities, culminating in the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The revolution brought about significant political changes and a break with monarchy, while enacting its own forms of social inequality and repression. For many Iranians, the U.S. support for Iraq during the subsequent Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), its longstanding sanctions regime against Iran and recent “maximum pressure” policies constitute an enduring imperial legacy. The crisis spurred by recent U.S. assassinations also directly undermines democratic uprisings in Iran and Iraq.

For educators committed to justice, we know that our teaching cannot be ahistorical and apolitical, nor can we be silent in the face of popular struggles and vast inequities of power. Why then, do empire and militarism so often fall by the wayside in our teaching?

A formidable challenge is the myth of the U.S. as a country uniquely rooted in ideals of freedom whose military power is inherently justified. Building pedagogical space to critically engage with militarism, nationalism and empire therefore first necessitates acknowledging how deeply saturated schools are with assumptions of American goodness. We can then work with students to examine how those narratives confer or dissolve ethical obligation and humanity on different bodies.

Media representations also contribute to these challenges. On January 7, news outlets tweeted that, “Iranian missile attacks only resulted in Iraqi casualties.” Whole civics lessons and units can be constructed around the word “only.” Such hierarchies of human value are crucial teaching moments that can support students to trace the operation of white supremacy across time and place. Jim Crow laws codified a system that benefitted “only” whites, and the 1875 Page Act was “only” enforced against Chinese immigrants. Anti-immigrant narratives justify family separation at the border by arguing that they “only” affect undocumented immigrants. Analyzing such statements is a powerful way for students to understand the dehumanization words like “only” perform, and to develop a critical eye toward the workings of language.

The rise of the ethnic studies movement, as well as the development of “histories from below” offer important counternarratives to American exceptionalism by highlighting community knowledge and struggles for justice. Curricular resources can support students and teachers to critically interrogate Eurocentric understandings and essentializing representations of the Middle East and North Africa. Critical approaches to science and technology, similarly, can foreground indigenous and non-Western knowledge, and desettle hegemonic and racist representations of the world’s diverse intellectual and scientific traditions. A critical STEM education also makes visible linkages between militarism and the development of scientific and technical knowledge, including histories of resistance to the exploitation of science for war. Rather than consigning these perspectives to a standalone civics education, they ought to infuse the curriculum as a critical and ethical stance of inquiry. Indeed, the political, economic and ecological challenges of our time demand that we contend with the deeper purposes of knowledge and learning.

Educators must remember to listen and eschew simple assumptions about what “those people” think or feel about any singular political event.

There is no consensus on how to teach these issues, and the tenor of these conversations will certainly vary across settings. Some of us teach in communities where there may be vocal opposition to such approaches, and have family members or colleagues in the armed forces. Still, we must not be dissuaded from working with our students and colleagues to query their assumptions and beliefs. We may find that no one has asked them these questions before, let alone given them the space and tools to explore them. What might happen, for instance, when we contrast “MAGA” talk with the realities that the U.S. military is heavily dependent on the recruitment of low-income youth of color, and that there is a diversity of political thought among veterans? How might it impact our students to explore the lengthy history of pacifism in the United States? Muhammad Ali taught us that an anti-imperial and antiwar stance does not demonize our community members, but rather, invites the possibility of solidarities across struggles for justice.

Political Memory and Dignity

For us — the coauthors of this article — and for many children coming of age in this historical moment, the political is deeply personal.

In 1991, when the first Gulf War happened, a white male teacher pulled Roozbeh (then 13 years old) aside to ask him how he was doing. The teacher told him that if anyone said anything, to let him know, because he wanted to ensure that Roozbeh was OK. That 30-second interaction before lunch has stayed with him to this day.


The political, economic and ecological challenges of our time demand that we contend with the deeper purposes of knowledge and learning.

At the outset of the same war, Shirin’s father took her (then 11) to an antiwar march in Seattle, where protesters of different backgrounds shouted to passersby in a nearby mall, “The bombs are dropping while you’re shopping!” The current conflict may be many students’ first memory of war. Our responses shape the ethical stances they develop toward militarism, and toward the lives of those consistently treated as expendable.

During the 2003 war on Iraq, Sepehr was an undergraduate student studying engineering at UCLA. Despite the prominent presence of numerous defense companies as funders of the engineering school, their role in the profoundly immoral and deadly Iraq War was seldom mentioned. The link between scientific and technical knowledge production on the one hand, and war and militarism on other, was thus effectively obfuscated.

These memories evoke the legacies of learning environments that affirmed or diminished our personhoods, that normalized or questioned demands for war. Despite accountability pressures that increasingly narrow the profession, we understand teaching — widely defined — as a vital site of social and political possibility. Enlivening these possibilities matters most when our young people’s belonging, rights and dignity are under question, and when our politics are being reduced to binaries. Crucial to this work is a need to develop critical understandings of empire, and the ethical vision to dream beyond it.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS:

Shirin Vossoughi is an assistant professor of learning sciences in the School of Education and Social Policy at Northwestern University, where she studies the cultural, sociopolitical and ethical dimensions of human learning. Vossoughi’s research centers on formal and informal learning environments that support expansive forms of disciplinary learning and educational self-determination. Current projects include collaborative work with Iranian diaspora communities around parenting, identity and intergenerational storytelling.

Roozbeh Shirazi is an assistant professor of comparative and international education in the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Minnesota. His research examines the intersections of social inequality, formations of youth citizenship and education reform. He has conducted research and worked on educational initiatives in New York and other U.S. cities, as well as in Afghanistan and Jordan. Currently, he is working on a digital storytelling project with newcomer youth in France to explore questions and experiences of displacement, xenophobia and belonging.

Sepehr Vakil is an assistant professor of learning sciences in the School of Education and Social Policy at Northwestern University. His research examines intersections of technology, ethics, race, and identity in K-16 computer science and engineering education. In a current project, he examines the political identities of engineering students in Iran and their role in the Islamic Revolution.

PHOTO: Families of children from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Yemen, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and other parts of the region want U.S. schools to support their children by refusing narratives that normalize empire, dehumanize whole populations and pave the way for endless wars. Fat Camera / Getty Images

Sunday, January 5, 2020

Thousands Take to Streets Across US to Protest Trump’s March to War Against Iran

https://truthout.org/…/thousands-take-to-streets-across-us-…

News
War and Peace


Thousands Take to Streets Across US to Protest Trump’s March to War Against Iran
by Jake Johnson
January 4, 2020
Common Dreams


PHOTO: An anti-war demonstrator holds up the peace sign during a demonstration against war in Iraq and Iran on January 4, 2020, in Washington, D.C. Alex Edelman / Getty Images
Thousands of people in dozens of cities across the United States on Saturday took to the streets to condemn the Trump administration’s “reckless acts of war” against Iran and demand that the U.S. withdraw its troops from the Middle East.

From New York City to Chicago to Arkansas and more than 70 other locations around the U.S., demonstrators rallied against the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, a move that sparked widespread fears of another catastrophic Middle East war.

“The American people have had enough with U.S. wars and are rising up to demand peace with Iran!” tweeted CodePink, an anti-war group that helped organize the nationwide demonstrations.

Chicago DSA 🌹 @ChicagoCityDSA
Marching down Michigan Ave from Wacker #NoWarWithIran
 
Embedded video


2,544
11:26 AM - Jan 4, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy


931 people are talking about this
Joshua Potash @JoshuaPotash
Right now at the White House:

A massive crowd rallying against war with Iran.
The American people do not want war.

Embedded video
7,629
9:54 AM - Jan 4, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy


4,814 people are talking about this
agitator in chief @soit_goes
Philadelphia is out to say #NoWarWithIran!

View image on Twitter
972
9:23 AM - Jan 4, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

351 people are talking about this

Mojgan Haji, an Iranian-American who attended a protest in downtown Boston Saturday, said, “It’s not just about my family, it’s about people. It’s about people here. It’s about people in Iran.”

“And nobody wins in this war except defense contractors,” said Haji.

The U.S. assassination of Soleimani, which was ordered by President Donald Trump, was met with a chorus of outrage from progressive anti-war organizations and members of Congress, who warned the likely unlawful killing could set off a wave of violence in the region and possibly lead to an all-out regional conflict.

Hours after the Soleimani’s assassination by a U.S. drone strike, the Pentagon deployed an additional 3,500 additional troops to Iraq and Kuwait, a decision critics condemned as “latest step on Trump’s march to war.”

“The assassination of Qassem Soleimani represents a dangerous, unconstitutional, and unprecedented military escalation with Iran,” said Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said in a statement Friday. “By circumventing Congress and green-lighting an unconstitutional strike, President Trump is doubling down on the reckless military brinksmanship that has already led us to the edge of war.”

In addition to protests across the U.S., hundreds of Londoners rallied against war with Iran Saturday:

Shabbir Lakha @ShabbirLakha

Hundreds of people turned up on less than a day’s notice to say #NoWarWithIran. The anti-war movement is ready to stand up to Trump and Johnson and stop another devastating war in the Middle East. Join @stwuk today.

View image on Twitter
123
8:51 AM - Jan 4, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

63 people are talking about this

Thousands of people in dozens of cities across the United States on Saturday took to the streets to condemn the Trump administration’s “reckless acts of war” against Iran and demand that the U.S. withdraw its troops from the Middle East.

From New York City to Chicago to Arkansas and more than 70 other locations around the U.S., demonstrators rallied against the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, a move that sparked widespread fears of another catastrophic Middle East war.

“The American people have had enough with U.S. wars and are rising up to demand peace with Iran!” tweeted CodePink, an anti-war group that helped organize the nationwide demonstrations.

Mojgan Haji, an Iranian-American who attended a protest in downtown Boston Saturday, said, “It’s not just about my family, it’s about people. It’s about people here. It’s about people in Iran.”

“And nobody wins in this war except defense contractors,” said Haji.

The U.S. assassination of Soleimani, which was ordered by President Donald Trump, was met with a chorus of outrage from progressive anti-war organizations and members of Congress, who warned the likely unlawful killing could set off a wave of violence in the region and possibly lead to an all-out regional conflict.

Hours after the Soleimani’s assassination by a U.S. drone strike, the Pentagon deployed an additional 3,500 additional troops to Iraq and Kuwait, a decision critics condemned as “latest step on Trump’s march to war.”

“The assassination of Qassem Soleimani represents a dangerous, unconstitutional, and unprecedented military escalation with Iran,” said Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said in a statement Friday. “By circumventing Congress and green-lighting an unconstitutional strike, President Trump is doubling down on the reckless military brinksmanship that has already led us to the edge of war.”

In addition to protests across the U.S., hundreds of Londoners rallied against war with Iran Saturday:

Young Labour, the youth section of the U.K. Labour Party, said in a statement that war with Iran would “contribute to the further destabilization of the Middle East and may lead to the largest conflict seen since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.”

“At this crucial point,” the group said, “we call for solidarity with the Iranian people against any aggressive action declared against them by the American government.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Jake Johnson is a staff writer for Common Dreams. Follow him on Twitter: @johnsonjakep.

PHOTO: An anti-war demonstrator holds up the peace sign during a demonstration against war in Iraq and Iran on January 4, 2020, in Washington, D.C. Alex Edelman / Getty Images

truthout.org


It's Time To Build A National Antiwar Movement

All,

We desperately need at least 2 million citizens to actively participate in a massive march on the white house and the Pentagon NOW...TODAY. It's absolutely imperative that we seriously marshall all of our antiwar strength throughout the entire country to engage in a colossal and ongoing civil disobedience campaign to stop the vile sinister criminal known forevermore as our very own IMPEACHED SCUMBAG-IN-CHIEF from dragging this country and the rest of the world down into the bloody sewer that is this maniac's most heartfelt desire. It's time to stop fucking around and PRETENDING that this unhinged monster and international disgrace is even sane let alone capable of resolving global conflict via rational political decisions and state diplomacy. 

Ultimately we must not fail in our collective effort to remove this malevolent human malady from office and to aggressively oppose and resist with everything within us his clearly diabolical plans to use us all as cannon fodder in his neofascist fantasy of maintaining, and extending the tyrannical madness that currently passes for "politics" in this rapidly disintegrating empire masquerading as a democratic Republic. Stay tuned and remain vigilant no matter what happens. Trust me: We're really gonna need it now, more than ever...

Kofi

https://www.nytimes.com/…/04/opin…/trump-suleimani-iran.html


Opinion

The Dire Consequences of Trump’s Suleimani Decision

One thing is clear after the killing of Iran’s second most important official: Americans are not safer.

by Susan E. Rice
January 4, 2020
New York Times



PHOTO: A U.S. Army paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division preparing to leave Fort Bragg, N.C., on Wednesday. Credit: Jonathan Drake/Reuters



Ms. Rice, a contributing opinion writer, was the national security adviser from 2013 to 2017.

Americans would be wise to brace for war with Iran.

Full-scale conflict is not a certainty, but the probability is higher than at any point in decades. Despite President Trump’s oft-professed desire to avoid war with Iran and withdraw from military entanglements in the Middle East, his decision to order the killing of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran’s second most important official, as well as Iraqi leaders of an Iranian-backed militia, now locks our two countries in a dangerous escalatory cycle that will likely lead to wider warfare.

How did we get here? What are the consequences of these targeted killings? Can we avoid a worse-case scenario?

The escalatory cycle began in May 2018, when President Trump recklessly ignored the advice of his national security team and the opposition of our allies in unilaterally withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal — despite Iran’s full adherence to its terms and its efficacy in rolling back Iran’s nuclear program. Since then, the Trump administration has had no coherent strategy to constrain Iran’s program or to counter other aspects of its nefarious behavior.

Mr. Trump’s “maximum pressure campaign” to impose ever more debilitating economic sanctions did not force Iran to capitulate; instead, predictably, it induced Tehran to lash out with a series of increasingly bold military provocations against Sunni Arab and Western targets while restarting important aspects of its nuclear program. Iran’s destabilizing activities in the region, notably in Syria, Yemen and Lebanon, have only intensified. At the same time, it has conducted a brutal crackdown on its civilian population. None of the Trump administration’s stated objectives have been met; if anything, the United States’ security and strategic positions in the region have weakened.

In deciding to eliminate General Suleimani, Mr. Trump and his team argue they were acting in self-defense to thwart imminent attacks on Americans in Iraq and the region. This may be true, as General Suleimani was a ruthless murderer and terrorist with much American blood on his hands. Unfortunately, it’s hard to place confidence in the representations of an administration that lies almost daily about matters large and small and, even in this critical instance, failed to brief, much less consult, bipartisan leaders in Congress.

Second, even if the killing of General Suleimani is justified by self-defense, it doesn’t make it strategically wise. Given the demonstrably haphazard and shortsighted nature of the Trump administration’s national security decision-making process (including calling off strikes against Iran 10 minutes before impact, inviting the Taliban to Camp David and abandoning the Kurds), it’s doubtful the administration spent much time gaming out the second and third order consequences of their action or preparing to protect American military and diplomatic personnel in the region.

To assess the fallout of killing General Suleimani, we must understand that the Iranian regime cannot survive internal dissent or sustain its powerful position in the region if it backs down from this provocation. For Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a strong response is essential. For the United States, the question is: What form will it take and how quickly will it come? One thing is clear: Americans are not safer, as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo argued on Fox News the morning after. Rather, American citizens are at greater risk of attack across a far wider battlefield than before. That is why the State Department has urged all Americans to depart not only Iraq but also Pakistan, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates.

In Iraq, Iranian-backed militias have attacked United States and allied installations, and can continue to do so around the country. The government in Baghdad has declared the killing a violation of the terms of the American military presence in Iraq. We will face mounting pressure to withdraw our military and diplomatic personnel from the country. If we leave, the United States will suffer a major strategic defeat: Iran will justifiably claim victory, and the gains of the fight against ISIS will be lost as the terrorist group rebuilds.

There is no hope now to revive, much less strengthen, the Iran nuclear deal, and we must expect Iran will accelerate its efforts to revive its nuclear program without constraint.

The global economy is imperiled, as the Gulf States’ energy infrastructure faces the risk of an Iranian attack, and commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and the larger Gulf region is threatened.

United States military, diplomatic and commercial operations as well as civilian targets throughout the Middle East are in range of both Iranian missiles and terrorist cells. From Afghanistan and Europe to Africa and Latin America, Iranian proxies — once latent — can stage asymmetric attacks against American and allied targets without warning. Even in the United States, we have reason to fear that terrorist sleeper cells could be activated. Worse, we face these threats now substantially alone, as the Trump administration apparently neglected to consult or even warn our key allies and partners about the impending risks to their interests that result from killing General Suleimani.

In the face of Iranian reprisals, it will be difficult for the United States to de-escalate tensions and avoid a larger conflict. Iran gets the next move. The United States has failed to deter Tehran thus far, even with the deployment of 14,000 additional American troops to the Gulf region since May. The announcement this week that the Pentagon was sending 3,500 more soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division seems unlikely to change things.

When Iran does respond, its response will likely be multifaceted and occur at unpredictable times and in multiple places. President Trump will then face what may yet be the most consequential national security decision of his presidency. If he reacts with additional force, the risk is great that the confrontation will spiral into a wider military conflict. If he fails to react in kind, he will likely invite escalating Iranian aggression.

It’s hard to envision how this ends short of war.

Related:
More views on the killing of Qassim Suleimani

Opinion | Jonathan Stevenson: American Foreign Policy Is Broken. Suleimani’s Killing Proves It.
Jan. 4, 2020


Opinion | The Editorial Board: ‘The Game Has Changed’
Jan. 3, 2020


Opinion | Barbara Slavin: Qassim Suleimani’s Killing Will Unleash Chaos
Jan. 3, 2020


Opinion | Thomas L. Friedman: Trump Kills Iran’s Most Overrated Warrior
Jan. 3, 2020


Opinion | Bret Stephens: Suleimani Died as He Had Killed
Jan. 3, 2020


Opinion | Narges Bajoghli: Suleimani’s Death Changes Nothing for Iran
Jan. 3, 2020


The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Susan E. Rice, the national security adviser from 2013 to 2017 and a former United States ambassador to the United Nations, is a contributing opinion writer. She is the author of the memoir, "Tough Love: My Story of the Things Worth Fighting For." @AmbassadorRice 

PHOTO: A U.S. Army paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division preparing to leave Fort Bragg, N.C., on Wednesday.Credit...Jonathan Drake/Reuters

Thursday, January 31, 2019

The Fight to Maintain the Political, Ideological, and Moral Integrity of the International BDS Movement and Its Support of the Human and Civil Rights of the Palestinian People vs. the Nefarious Legislative campaign by the GOP in Congress To Thwart and Defeat the Movement

https://truthout.org/…/republicans-are-using-shameless-tac…/

Op-Ed
Politics & Elections


Republicans Are Using Shameless Tactics to Split Democrats Over BDS
by Brant Rosen
January 31, 2019
Truthout

PHOTO: A provision added to the new Senate bill by Sen. Marco Rubio seeks to stifle support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

With the Senate’s imminent passage of the grandiosely titled Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act of 2019, it’s now official: Israel/Palestine will be a major political wedge issue in the 116th Congress and the 2020 election season. And it’s not going to be pretty.

This new Senate bill is essentially a package of previous bills that appears on the surface to be boilerplate Middle East legislation. But with the addition of a provision by Sen. Marco Rubio that seeks to stifle support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, this legislation is nothing short of a Republican line drawn in the sand.

BDS — the movement mobilized in response to a Palestinian civil society call for economic activism in support of Palestinian human rights — has long been a flash point for advocacy on the issue of Israel/Palestine. Over the past several years, there have been attempts on a state and federal level to fight BDS on a legislative level. While this new Senate bill does not criminalize BDS outright, it does encourage the passage of state laws that would require government contractors to certify they don’t participate in boycotts. More than two dozen states have passed such legislation in the past four years — laws that clearly violate the First Amendment right of free speech, as the ACLU and myriad other legal experts have pointed out.

In fact, the legality of these laws has already been successfully challenged in court. In Arizona, a US District judge issued an injunction blocking enforcement of its anti-BDS laws. Last December, a lawsuit was filed in federal court on behalf of a speech pathologist in Austin, Texas, after she was told that she could no longer work in the school district for refusing to sign an oath vowing that she “does not” and “will not” engage in a boycott of Israel.
Of course, the patently unconstitutional nature of these laws is immaterial to Senate lawmakers, who know full well that this legislation will have precious little impact on the “strength of America’s security in the Middle East.” Rather, the bill is a clear attempt by Republicans to divide Democrats over the politically fraught issue of Israel/Palestine, with BDS as the ultimate litmus test.

This Senate legislation is also a clear salvo at the new House of Representatives, which now includes the first US politicians to publicly support BDS: Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, a Somali refugee; Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, a Palestinian-American; and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. Not surprisingly, Omar and Tlaib, both Muslim, have already been cynically singled out by GOP politicians for accusations of anti-Semitism.

Republicans have made no secret of their intention to use divisions over BDS as fodder for their divide-and-conquer tactics. Norm Coleman, the national chairman of the Republican Jewish Coalition and a former senator from Minnesota, openly stated to The New York Times, “I don’t see much hope for changing where Tlaib and Omar are, but there is a battle in the Democratic Party…. It is a message to Jews who still care about Israel, to say, ‘You’ll be much more comfortable in the Republican Party.’”

Republicans have made no secret of their intention to use divisions over BDS as fodder for their divide-and-conquer tactics.

After yesterday’s vote, however, it’s far from certain that the GOP’s strategy will succeed. It’s worth noting that every potential 2020 presidential candidate — Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Sherrod Brown, Kirsten Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders — voted against the bill. Moreover, during Tuesday’s Senate debate, Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland delivered a long and passionate denunciation of the bill. Liberal Zionist organizations, such as J Street and the rabbinical organization T’ruah, have issued statements condemning the legislation on free speech grounds. While these politicians and organizations still use clearly Zionist talking points and take pains to mention that they personally oppose BDS, their refusal to take the Republican bait is noteworthy.

In yet another sign of the increasing divide, a new group calling itself Democratic Majority for Israel has now incorporated in Washington, DC. According to its flashy new website, the group plans to “maintain and strengthen support for Israel among Democratic leaders including presidential and congressional candidates as well as with the grassroots of progressive movements.”

Suspiciously, however, while it proudly touts its “progressive policy agenda,” the new organization declines to identify any particular policy regarding Israel/Palestine. On the contrary, according to its “guiding principles,” Democratic Majority for Israel pointedly avoids any position beyond states “celebrating Israeli democracy and the right of the Israeli people to determine their own future without outside parties imposing solutions.” This new project claims it is separate and independent from AIPAC, the prominent and powerful pro-Israel lobbying group. However, a recent article in the Forward points out that of Democratic Majority for Israel’s “15 board members, 11 have either worked or volunteered for [AIPAC], donated to it or spoken at its events.” Moreover, the group’s president, Mark Mellman, has made it clear that Democratic Majority for Israel is actively trying to build a Democratic wing that will stand “unwaveringly” with Israel:

Most Democrats are strongly pro-Israel and we want to keep it that way. There are a few discordant voices, but we want to make sure that what’s a very small problem doesn’t metastasize into a bigger problem.

It’s not yet clear how many prominent Democrats will be attracted to this new project, but it has already gained the support of Rep. Hakeem Jefferies of New York, the fourth-ranking Democrat and a potential future Speaker of the House. In announcing his fealty to Democratic Majority for Israel, Jefferies praised the “special relationship between the United States and Israel” that is “rooted in shared values, an important strategic partnership in the Middle East, perhaps the world’s toughest neighborhood,” concluding, “I look forward to working with the Democratic Majority for Israel as it advances the unbreakable US-Israel bond into the future.”

It’s fair to view these new political maneuvers as the tactics of a once-formidable Israel advocacy machine that knows its power is on the wane.

How to respond to the new “divide-and-conquer” atmosphere currently sweeping the Democratic party? As ever, it will come down to money versus people power. In the end, it’s fair to view these new political maneuvers as the tactics of a once-formidable Israel advocacy machine that knows its power is on the wane. While it would certainly be foolhardy to underestimate the strength of the Israel lobby, there is a certain air of desperation surrounding these political efforts to stem the growth of the popular movement responding to the Palestinian civil society call for BDS.

It is clear that the growing movement of support for Palestinian human rights is increasingly popular with young people — including young Jews. Additionally, we now have members of Congress showing solidarity with Palestinians, and the first-ever congressional bill advocating for Palestinian human rights will soon be reintroduced. Bottom line: those who defend the oppressive policies of the state of Israel have every reason to be concerned.

It remains to be seen whether Republicans’ new political wedge tactics will succeed in weakening the Democratic Party. At the very least, they will force Democratic leaders to come clean on precisely where they stand on the issue of Israel/Palestine. With the 116th Congress now under way and the 2020 presidential campaign just out of the gate, the stakes could not be higher.

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

The Re-election of Bebe Netanyahu in Israel and Its Grave Implications for the Middle East and Palestinian-Israeli relations

All,

In an extremely violent, turbulent, and contentious region of the world characterized by and teeming with relentlessly dogmatic and wildly irresponsible political, religious, and ideological demagogues posing as "leaders" and "statesmen"--from Saudi Arabia to Iran, and from Egypt to Iraq, one of the worst and most opportunist in this explosive part of the world is the current prime minister of Israel Bebe Netanyahu who was shamelessly--and tragically-- re-elected to a fourth term yesterday.

A pompous overbearing rightwing hack and loudmouthed hypocritical bully (from the United States!) who thrives on blatant fear mongering within Israel itself and the overt and covert xenophobic use of the open intimidation of the Palestinian people via the cruel and oppressive expansion of Israeli settlements and propping up the apartheid like structural and institutional system "governing" Gaza and the West Bank,  Netanyahu and the Zionist rightwingers of the Likud party that Netanyahu leads are only arrogantly interested--like far too many of their authoritarian Arab counterparts and enemies in the region-- in endlessly pouring gasoline on a massive raging fire in the 'Middle East' that can only end in total mutual destruction for them all.

That no good can or will come of Netanyahu's rhetorical insistence and corresponding vicious threats that only he and his rightwing and neoliberal supporters within Israel and the rest of the world can and will determine the ultimate political, economic, social, and cultural "fate"  of the Palestinians, while they simply remain in cowed abject colonial subjugation to the Israeli righwing rulers with the even more comprehensive and oppressive support of the United States (who we should NEVER FORGET also fully backed the fascist South African regime throughout its entire history of Apartheid) is a huge understatement.

But as we all know from history-- or should know by this very late date-- political demagoguery on this scale-- no matter how it is defended or justified by its users--can only lead to not only the destruction of others but to the destruction of oneself as well. This deadend cul-de-sac is absolutely assured no matter who tries to evade it because no one ultimately escapes History--even or most especially the most powerful...Stay tuned...

Kofi

Netanyahu Soundly Defeats Chief Rival in Israeli Elections
By JODI RUDOREN
MARCH 17, 2015
NEW YORK TIMES


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel celebrated with supporters in Tel Aviv on Wednesday. Credit Amir Cohen/Reuters 
     
TEL AVIV — After a bruising campaign focused on his failings, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel won a clear victory in Tuesday’s elections and seemed all but certain to form a new government and serve a fourth term, though he offended many voters and alienated allies in the process.

With 99.5 percent of the ballots counted, the YNet news site reported Wednesday morning that Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud Party had captured 29 or 30 of the 120 seats in Parliament, sweeping past his chief rival, the center-left Zionist Union alliance, which got 24 seats.

Mr. Netanyahu and his allies had seized on earlier exit polls that showed a slimmer Likud lead to create an aura of inevitability, and celebrated with singing and dancing. While his opponents vowed a fight, Israeli political analysts agreed even before most of the ballots were counted that he had the advantage, with more seats having gone to the right-leaning parties likely to support him.

Related Coverage:

 
Supporters of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s re-election celebrated on Tuesday night as results came in at his campaign headquarters in Tel Aviv.

News Analysis: Deep Wounds and Lingering Questions After Israel’s Bitter Race
MARCH 17, 2015

Voters in Nazareth Cheer Gains by Arab Alliance MARCH 17, 2015

Breakaway Party Leader Stays Mum on Where He’ll Throw Support After Israeli Elections
MARCH 17, 2015

Netanyahu Says No to Statehood for Palestinians
MARCH 16, 2015

It was a stunning turnabout from the last pre-election polls published Friday, which showed the Zionist Union, led by Isaac Herzog, with a four- or five-seat lead and building momentum, and the Likud polling close to 20 seats. To bridge the gap, Mr. Netanyahu embarked on a last-minute scorched-earth campaign, promising that no Palestinian state would be established as long as he remained in office and insulting Arab citizens.

Mr. Netanyahu, who served as prime minister for three years in the 1990s and returned to office in 2009, exulted in what he called “a huge victory” and said he had spoken to the heads of all the parties “in the national camp” and urged them to help him form a government “without any further ado.”

“I am proud of the Israeli people that, in the moment of truth, knew how to separate between what’s important or what’s not and to stand up for what’s important,” he told an exuberant crowd early Wednesday morning at Likud’s election party at the Tel Aviv Fairgrounds. “For the most important thing for all of us, which is real security, social economy and strong leadership.”

But it remained to be seen how his divisive — some said racist — campaign tactics would affect his ability to govern a fractured Israel.

Mr. Herzog also called the election “an incredible achievement.” He said he had formed a negotiating team and still hoped to lead “a real social government in Israel” that “aspires to peace with our neighbors.”

“The public wants a change,” he said at an election-night party in Tel Aviv, before the Likud’s large margin of victory was revealed by the actual vote count. “We will do everything in our power, given the reality, to reach this. In any case, I can tell you that there will be no decisions tonight.”

Based on the results reported on YNet, Mr. Netanyahu could form a narrow coalition of nationalist and religious parties free of the ideological divisions that stymied his last government. That was what he intended when he called early elections in December. President Reuven Rivlin, who in coming days must charge Mr. Netanyahu or Mr. Herzog with trying to forge a coalition based on his poll of party leaders’ preferences , said shortly after the polls closed that he would suggest they join forces instead.

“I am convinced that only a unity government can prevent the rapid disintegration of Israel’s democracy and new elections in the near future,” he told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

Both camps rejected that option publicly, saying the gaps between their world views were too large. Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Herzog started working the phones immediately after the polls closed, calling party heads to begin the horse-trading and deal-making in hopes of lining up a majority of lawmakers behind them.

The biggest prize may be Moshe Kahlon, a popular former Likud minister who broke away — in part out of frustration with Mr. Netanyahu — to form Kulanu, which focused on pocketbook issues. Mr. Kahlon leans to the right but has issues with the prime minister, and he said Tuesday night that he would not reveal his recommendation until the final results were tallied.

Kulanu — Hebrew for “All of Us” — won 10 seats , according to the tally YNet reported Wednesday based on 99.5 percent of ballots counted. That is enough to put either side’s basic ideological alliance over the magic number of 61 if they also win the backing of two ultra-Orthodox parties that won a total of 14 seats.

“The clearest political outcome is that Kahlon is going to be the kingmaker, and it really depends on how he is going to play his cards,” said Yohanan Plesner, president of the Israel Democracy Institute. “It very much depends on Kahlon.”

Silvan Shalom, a Likud minister, told reporters that the prime minister would reach out first to Naftali Bennett of the Jewish Home party and to Avigdor Lieberman of Yisrael Beiteinu, two archconservatives, and “of course Moshe Kahlon,” predicting a coalition “within the next few days” of 63 or 64 seats.

“Israel said today a very clear ‘yes’ to Prime Minister Netanyahu and to the Likud to continue leading the State of Israel,” Mr. Shalom said. “We’ll do it with our allies. We’ll have a strong coalition that is able to deal with all the important issues.”

The Zionist Union said, essentially, not so fast.

Nachman Shai, a senior lawmaker from the Labor Party, which joined with the smaller Hatnua to form the new slate, said Mr. Herzog could still form a coalition, thought he did not specify how, and advised the public to “wait and see.” “They’re trying to cash the check and create a  certain atmosphere of victory," Mr. Shai told reporters. “We’ll do the same.”

The murky exit-poll predictions led to a murky reaction from the White House, where a spokesman said that President Obama remained “committed to working very closely with the winner of the ongoing elections to cement and further deepen the strong relationship between the United States and Israel, and the president is confident that he can do that with whomever the Israeli people choose.”

The Joint List of Arab parties won 13 seats, making it the third-largest parliamentary faction. Its four component parties previously had 11.

The unity seems to have lifted turnout among Arab voters to its highest level since 1969, said the list’s leader, Ayman Odeh. Arab parties have never joined an Israeli coalition, but Mr. Odeh has indicated that he would try to help Mr. Herzog in other ways in hopes of ending Mr. Netanyahu’s tenure.

Yesh Atid, a centrist party that won a surprising 19 seats in the 2013 election, its first, earned 11 this time. The Jewish Home lost votes to Mr. Netanyahu’s swing to the right and ended up with eight, according to YNet, down from its current 12. The ultranationalist Yisrael Beiteinu had six, and the leftist Meretz four.

A new ultra-Orthodox breakaway faction apparently failed to pass the raised electoral threshold to enter Parliament, which means its votes will be discarded, costing the right-wing bloc.

As the results of Israel’s tight election roll in, Israelis reflect on the issues they hope the next prime minister will make priorities.

Turnout was near 72 percent, four percentage points higher than in 2013, which analysts attributed to the surprisingly close contest between the Likud and Zionist Union.

“For the first time in many years, we see a serious strengthening in the two major parties,” said Yehuda Ben Meir of the Institute for National Security Studies. “Both parties are higher up at the expense of the smaller parties, which is good for stability, and it’s a move to the center. The larger parties are always more to the center than the satellite parties.”

But Mr. Plesner of the Democracy Institute said the results showed the need for electoral reform because Israel’s “system is so fragmented, so unstable, so difficult to govern.”

Tuesday’s balloting came just 26 months after Israel’s last election, but the dynamic was entirely different. In 2013, there was no serious challenge to Mr. Netanyahu. This time, Mr. Herzog teamed up with Tzipi Livni to form the Zionist Union, an effort to reclaim the state’s founding pioneer philosophy from a right-wing that increasingly defines it in opposition to Palestinian national aspirations.

They promised to stop construction in isolated Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, to try to renew negotiations with the Palestinians, and to restore relations Mr. Netanyahu had frayed with the White House. Mostly, though, they — along with Yesh Atid and Kulanu — hammered the prime minister on kitchen-table concerns like the high cost of housing and food.

Mr. Netanyahu talked mainly about the threats of an Iranian nuclear weapon and Islamic terrorism, addressing economics only in the final days. That was also when he made a sharp turn to the right, backing away from his 2009 endorsement of a two-state solution to the Palestinian conflict and sounding an alarm Tuesday morning that Arabs were voting “in droves.”

Many voters complained about a bitter campaign of ugly attacks and a lack of inspiring choices.

“I am happy today to be able to vote, but I know I’ll be unhappy with the result, no matter who wins,” said Elad Grafi, 29, who lives in Rehovot, a large city south of Tel Aviv. Sneering at the likelihood of any candidate being able to form a coalition stable enough to last a full term, he added, “Anyway, I’ll see you here again in two years, right?”

In the Jerusalem suburb of Tzur Hadassah, Eli Paniri, 54, a longtime Likud supporter, said he “voted for the only person who should be prime minister: Netanyahu.”

“I am not ashamed of this,” Mr. Paniri said after weeks of Netanyahu-bashing from all sides. “He is a strong man and, most important, he stood up to President Obama.”


Reporting was contributed by Irit Pazner Garshowitz from Tzur Hadassah, Israel, and Tel Aviv; Isabel Kershner, Myra Noveck and Carol Sutherland from Jerusalem; Michael D. Shear from Washington; Diaa Hadid from the West Bank; Rina Castelnuovo from Beit Zayit, Israel; and Gabby Sobelman from Rehovot, Israel.

A version of this article appears in print on March 18, 2015, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Netanyahu Soundly Defeats Chief Rival.