American Labor Can Help Right Anti-Israel Left
By Stuart Appelbaum
Thu. Mar 27, 2008
For more than two years, Israelis living in Sderot and other towns near Gaza have been the target of choice for Hamas terrorists. Launching its arsenal of Qassam rockets from residential neighborhoods and even schoolyards, they have as much as dared Israel to fight back. Now it has.
Predictably, much of the world is expressing its dismay — and those of us who call ourselves progressives are fuming that much of it is coming from our counterparts on the left overseas. However, it's not enough for us to be indignant. Absent the involvement of the American labor movement, any effort to build worldwide support on the left for the Jewish state will be extraordinary difficult.
To grasp the enormity of the challenge facing Israel's friends on the left, one need only look at the Socialist International's condemnation last month of "the excessive use of force by Israel in Gaza." The umbrella body of social democratic, socialist and labor parties went on to point out that it has "consistently denounced the attacks against Israel coming from Gaza as well as the incursions into Gaza by Israel, for both serve only to worsen the cycles of violence that in the end harm innocent people the most."
Of course, those who have even a passing familiarity with Hamas understand that their raison d'etre is the creation of a chain of violence and retribution. Suggesting that Israel and Hamas are both to blame for the bloodshed in Gaza is akin to saying that the would-be victim who fights off a mugger bears equal responsibility for the violence as the assailant.
Statements like the Socialist International's, however, are salutary compared to some of the venom generated by the left abroad.
For example, Australia's Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union and the Maritime Union of Australia joined forces recently to condemn a parliamentary resolution congratulating Israel on its 60 years of statehood . Their words speak for themselves: "We, as informed and concerned Australians, choose to disassociate ourselves from a celebration of the triumph of racism and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians since the al-Nakba (Catastrophe) of 1948."
Why do voices that so often cry out for social justice serve up these kinds of diatribes against Israel? Why do they hold Israel to standards that no other nation in the world would ever be expected to meet? And why do so many of them claim that, in the final analysis, Israel is responsible for everything Hamas does or will do?
It is the triumph of instinct over intellect, and one can only conclude that, at least in part, what we are increasingly witnessing on the left overseas is antisemitism cloaked under the veil of anti-Zionism.
The post elicited some interesting commentary.
DE Teodoru said:
I never understoof the dangerous Fawing [meant fawning] of some American Jews— who appreciate the importance of separating Church and State to their survival in America— over right wing Evangeligals like John Hagee. Rev. Hagee's Jewish admirers remind of Hitler's Jewish admirers in Batar, Jabotinsky's "revisionist" mob that sought conquest by means of a bloody "iron wall," long before any Arab war befell the Zionists. Batar wore uniforms weaved, sewn, washed, pressed and distributed free by their Nazi tailors. Said Batar: so what if Hitler didn't like Jews, he's wonderful for the German people— then came Kristallnacht!
For three generations American Jews have wailed over the Holocaust. But it is not the wail for lost beloved brethren, but the wail of heavy guilt passed on through three generations for the deliberate silence of the 1930s, motivated by fear that their "good deal" in America might be endangered if they speak too loudly against German-US relations. After all, Germans were then the biggest immigrant group and the Bun was mighty tough, even in America.
East Euro Jews who survived TWO Holocausts (Hitler's and Stalin's) raised me through our westward refuge from Stalin's grasp. And they taught me that people who think it's cool to make a deal with them "dumb goyim" loonies end up at the front of the line of horror... as so many in Russia found out in the 1950 Soviet "Doctors' Plot" of Stalin. In 1946 Zionist leaders pledged Stalin full support against the West if only he armed the Palmach against the Arabs. He armed them generously; and then he butchered Russian Jews in a spasm of anti-Semitism brought to an end only by his death in 1953. So as a Christian raised by Jews I offer you an historical lesson passed on to me by my wise mentors: Don't play with the Devil, thinking that he is dumb; for you will surely be burned!
Thu. Mar 27, 2008
Adam Gold said:
The reason why most labour movements worldwide, especially the democratic ones, are ambivalent about supporting the Israeli state and its government is precisely because it is engaged in a brutal military occupation and has consistently denied and scuttled every serious attempt at a peaceful settlement in the last 40 years. Read Israeli academic Avi Shlaim's "Iron Wall" for proof. Or check out the website of Israel's B'Tselem: http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Index.asp which provides ample, uncontestible evidence of the gross disproptionate nature of Palestinian civilian suffering.
The chief problem with the argument here is the concept of "Israel". This piece conflates the state, the government, the military and the people as if they are all the same. What labour movements worldwide should be doing is lending solidarity to all workers in Israel/Palestine and defending their human rights, not sucking up to governments (US, Israel or whatever).
As a non-native american citizen of the US, I assume you acknowledge the terrible treatement of North America's indigenous people over the last 500 years (what was ethnic-cleansing at a minimum). Is it truly so hard to acknowlege the same was suffered by the Palestinians?
Thu. Mar 27, 2008
Over the past two years alone Israel has killed more than 900 Palestinians, roughly half of whom are civilians. In return, the Palestinians have killed some 31 Israelis, again roughly half civilian. Mr. Appelbaum is right to decry the notion that "Israel and Hamas are both to blame for the bloodshed in Gaza," for the preponderance of force and violence and brutality is now and always has been Zionist. The above numbers do not begin to describe the hell Israel has imposed upon the Palestinians, for there are also the wounded and crippled, the beaten and humiliated, the 18,000 homes bulldozed, the land confiscated, the crops and olive trees destroyed, the check points and blockades and curfews, the hunger, the lack of jobs and of a future, all that which comes from internment in these modern-day concentration camps called Gaza and the West Bank. Yet Appelbaum, unable to melt butter in his mouth, insists Israel to be the helpless victim. What fools does blind ideology make of us all! Israel with the most powerful army in the ME, the fourth most powerful in the world, backed to the hilt by the US; Israel with the largest economy in the region, an economy many times larger than all its neighbors' combined; Israel who controls every aspect of Palestinian life, down to the population registry and what coinage they should use and when they should be allowed access to their groves. Israel who commits all of the above and kills with impunity and then is outraged when someone shoots back. What astonishing chutzpah, what towering narcissism.
Fri. Mar 28, 2008
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)