It seems that the Middle East is always changing. Look away for an instant an you loose your place. Gaza is in the hands of Hamas. Fayad is the new Prime Minister. Katsav has resigned from the Israeli Presidency to be replaced by Peres. Tony Blair is the new MidEast Envoy for the Quartet. And depending on who you listen to Peace, (or at least Peace between Israel and Fatah in the West Bank) is either just over the horizon or a million miles away. Oh yeh, Barak is the new head of the Labor Party and the new Israeli Defense Minister. And the Sword of Damocles remains over Olmert's head until the final report of the Winograd Commission is made public. And on a program on MSNBC I heard a well known Republican consultant make a case for why Donald Trump should be the new US Middle East Peacemaker. The case basically went like this. Because the diplomats continue to fail and the Donald is a world class deal-maker. With Americans continuing to die in Iraq, a renewed potency for the Taliban in Afghanistan, Al Qedea on the march in Europe and the Middle East and Britain suffering under the growing threat of home grown Islamic bombers maybe it is time for new leadership. I think here in America we have to wait until November 2008 to know what comes next.
Let us pray!
Friday, June 29, 2007
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
OpEdNews.com: The World Says No To Israeli Occupation
Sunday began with an early morning drive into Philadelphia to catch the bus from 4722 Baltimore Avenue to DC and take part in a rally and march to end the 40 year occupation of Palestine. The program was developed by a coalition of organizations under the banner US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation in coordination with a second coalition coming together with the heading United for Peace and Justice. If you think that’s a mouthful you’re right. One of the difficulties of building national support is in trying to connect hundreds of groups interested in freedom to one singular message.
The bus was full of activist from a broad group of backgrounds, Jewish, Muslim and Christian alike. I asked Jerry Taylor from Yardley, PA why he got on the bus? “Because people are suffering. I hope there is something I can do. The Palestinians are just being slaughtered. This is government-sanctioned ethnocide. Our government supports this,” he said.
I asked Marilyn Looseman, from Haverford PA, why she was taking the trip? “Because I believe in what we’re doing. Israel will be far more secure when it allows the Palestinians to be secure.” I asked what she wanted the outcome of the day to be? “More Americans understanding what the situation really is by spreading the word.”
I asked Sonia Khalil of Philadelphia why she was on the bus? “Israel and Palestine will be secure if they see the occupation is the source of the violence. Once the occupation is ended violence will be ended. There will be prosperity for both. I do believe in a two-state solution.” I asked what she wanted to be the result of the rally? “It’s good for us to go out there and share that there are Jews as well as Palestinians and Christians out there that don’t agree with the occupation.”
After a brisk walk from the bus-deck of Union Station the group made its way in front of the US Capital. There was a fenced-in quadrangle with a stage festooned with a sign; “The World Says No to Israeli Occupation.” There were some tables set up with literature and a cross-section of books, mostly by socialist authors. Around the perimeter were a few more tables including one from ICAHD-USA, the Israeli Committee Against House Demolition, Project Hope, a Palestinian children’s educational program and Trees for Life, an organization to support Palestinian farmers. Just about the time I was considering making a purchase a member of the Rally staff came around to inform all the sellers that they were not permitted to make any sales or take any money on the site because the permit didn’t provide for that. One better, he stopped a man from anchoring a banner on posts in the ground, stating that; “You can’t do that. If you do they’ll shut down the Rally.”
People were flowing in and I heard that there was a significant counter rally being staged by Israeli activists. I didn’t see them in any numbers so I figured the police had that rally taking place a distant site. I ambled up to the right side of the stage, filled out some paperwork and received my press pass and a folder containing information on the day’s events.
Reading from the Call to Action: “We know that occupation is wrong. We see US troops occupying Iraq, and we say no. We see Israeli troops and civilians occupying Palestinian land, and we say no again. Wrong in Iraq, wrong in Palestine.” It goes on to state that; “We in the United States have a special obligation to protest Israel’s illegal military occupation because it is our government that provides Israel with the uncritical military, economic, diplomatic, and corporate support that it needs to sustain and expand its control of the Palestinian West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. If we do not protest, then we are complicit in the human rights abuses inflicted daily on Palestinians who are forced to live under Israel’s brutal military occupation.”
I watched as two groups were handing out signs. A red and black one said; “Justice for Palestine.” A yellow and black one from a group called answercoalition.org wanted more; “Free Palestine. Support the Right of Return.”
I met Rana Abdelquder, an eighteen year old from Poughkeepsie, NY. She told me; “My family was pushed out of Palestine in 1948. They had lived in the village of Jimzu. I went back in 1997 to see it with my own eyes. I started an organization, “Palestine: Voices of the Next Generation,” and put it on myspace.com. People around here aren’t educated enough. It’s up to us. We’re the next generation.” I asked what she wanted to happen? “At least equality today. These kids don’t have a future. To give them a chance for a future.”
I spoke with Gwen Dubois a member of the Tikkun Community from Baltimore. “As a Jew raised with the idea life comes first. That Jews are justice loving people. That the occupation is unjust. I care about Israel, but oppose the policy of its government.” I asked what she though was necessary? “Most helpful would be more of a dialog in the Jewish community in the United States.”
I met Desiree Farooz, a member of Code Pink from Arlington TX. “We are women for peace. End the occupation. Give the indigenous people of Palestine their country back. We bring some color and creativity to the movement. We are willing to sacrifice. We have women here who have sacrificed jobs on behalf of peace. Women who can’t stay at home. Can’t tolerate this bloodshed anymore.” I asked what she wanted to happen? “Arab American’s need to unite. More Palestinian American’s saying no to the occupation. More activism. A coalition of everyone to stand up to the injustice.”
I spoke with Ashley Wilkerson a young missionary from the United Methodist Church who was posted in Bethlehem for sixteen months and was now interning for the US Campaign, and serving as an Event Press Coordinator. She was listening to one of the speeches and a tear was rolling down her cheek. I asked what image she held from Bethlehem? “The Wall in Bethlehem is massive and it feels like it’s all around you. Someone in one of the refugee camps told me it’s around his heart. Every night the Israeli military came into Bethlehem and takes somebody. They broke into my room when I wasn’t there. There is no system of accountability.” I switched subjects and asked her if they had a count on the crowd? She got on her cell phone and a couple minutes later a number came back; “About 5000.” I had just guessed that number.
I have been to larger events on the mall. But speaker after speaker including Ambassador Ed Peck, Tony Bing, Judith LeBlank, Husam El-Nounou, Rabbi Jerry Milgom and Cindy and Craig Corrie and many more gave testimony to the climate of injustice that pervades the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem and robs Palestinians of their right to move freely, to earn a decent living, to support their families and to look forward to the future. I believe the facts of terror, suicide bombers targeting civilians and rockets hitting S’derot on a daily basis do not bring the people of Palestine closer to achieving their goals of justice, freedom and peace. But this was a day for recognizing the injustices of the occupation and the human rights of the Palestinian people.
After a group of rappers charged up the audience, the march began from the Capital to the base of the Washington Monument facing the White House. Drums beat, the crowd chanted and people carried signs along Independence Ave. as they advanced. The police were out in numbers assisted by a large contingent of orange vested volunteers.
And then it happened. The counter demonstration was waiting for the marchers along the parade route. Hundreds of Israeli activists carried signs that went from a simple plea for peace to repudiate Hamas to the announcement that it’s all Israel’s land. Some of the people were contained and some were screaming epithets with one young man waving his middle finger. Some of the chants by the anti-occupation marchers were positive while others made me uneasy.
I noticed a couple of young people, I’d say around twenty years of age holding an Israeli flag. I stopped to talk to them. Benjamin Franblum was from Bethesda, MD. I asked what brought him here today? “I came to make sure I wasn’t one of the one’s who didn’t. I want to fight now while its words. Their leadership is inciting violence. I want all Palestinians and all Israelis to be able to raise their families in human peace and dignity.”
I suggested that that was a most laudable goal. His friend Rachel noted that the marchers are “a lot of confused people. People who need to take self-responsibility to better their lives.” I didn’t answer her by saying that that was exactly what they were doing. I thanked them both and moved back into the crowded streets before I drew a crowd of my own. We marched on toward the White House and then quickly dispersed for the long march back to the buses at Union Station. Others stayed on for Monday’s lobbying effort.
There was no violence. However, my friend from the bus, Marilyn, happened to take a pretty nasty header hurrying back to Union Station. People believed that they stood up for Palestinian rights as rights due every human being and hoped that the world takes notice.
Larry Snider 6/11/07
The bus was full of activist from a broad group of backgrounds, Jewish, Muslim and Christian alike. I asked Jerry Taylor from Yardley, PA why he got on the bus? “Because people are suffering. I hope there is something I can do. The Palestinians are just being slaughtered. This is government-sanctioned ethnocide. Our government supports this,” he said.
I asked Marilyn Looseman, from Haverford PA, why she was taking the trip? “Because I believe in what we’re doing. Israel will be far more secure when it allows the Palestinians to be secure.” I asked what she wanted the outcome of the day to be? “More Americans understanding what the situation really is by spreading the word.”
I asked Sonia Khalil of Philadelphia why she was on the bus? “Israel and Palestine will be secure if they see the occupation is the source of the violence. Once the occupation is ended violence will be ended. There will be prosperity for both. I do believe in a two-state solution.” I asked what she wanted to be the result of the rally? “It’s good for us to go out there and share that there are Jews as well as Palestinians and Christians out there that don’t agree with the occupation.”
After a brisk walk from the bus-deck of Union Station the group made its way in front of the US Capital. There was a fenced-in quadrangle with a stage festooned with a sign; “The World Says No to Israeli Occupation.” There were some tables set up with literature and a cross-section of books, mostly by socialist authors. Around the perimeter were a few more tables including one from ICAHD-USA, the Israeli Committee Against House Demolition, Project Hope, a Palestinian children’s educational program and Trees for Life, an organization to support Palestinian farmers. Just about the time I was considering making a purchase a member of the Rally staff came around to inform all the sellers that they were not permitted to make any sales or take any money on the site because the permit didn’t provide for that. One better, he stopped a man from anchoring a banner on posts in the ground, stating that; “You can’t do that. If you do they’ll shut down the Rally.”
People were flowing in and I heard that there was a significant counter rally being staged by Israeli activists. I didn’t see them in any numbers so I figured the police had that rally taking place a distant site. I ambled up to the right side of the stage, filled out some paperwork and received my press pass and a folder containing information on the day’s events.
Reading from the Call to Action: “We know that occupation is wrong. We see US troops occupying Iraq, and we say no. We see Israeli troops and civilians occupying Palestinian land, and we say no again. Wrong in Iraq, wrong in Palestine.” It goes on to state that; “We in the United States have a special obligation to protest Israel’s illegal military occupation because it is our government that provides Israel with the uncritical military, economic, diplomatic, and corporate support that it needs to sustain and expand its control of the Palestinian West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. If we do not protest, then we are complicit in the human rights abuses inflicted daily on Palestinians who are forced to live under Israel’s brutal military occupation.”
I watched as two groups were handing out signs. A red and black one said; “Justice for Palestine.” A yellow and black one from a group called answercoalition.org wanted more; “Free Palestine. Support the Right of Return.”
I met Rana Abdelquder, an eighteen year old from Poughkeepsie, NY. She told me; “My family was pushed out of Palestine in 1948. They had lived in the village of Jimzu. I went back in 1997 to see it with my own eyes. I started an organization, “Palestine: Voices of the Next Generation,” and put it on myspace.com. People around here aren’t educated enough. It’s up to us. We’re the next generation.” I asked what she wanted to happen? “At least equality today. These kids don’t have a future. To give them a chance for a future.”
I spoke with Gwen Dubois a member of the Tikkun Community from Baltimore. “As a Jew raised with the idea life comes first. That Jews are justice loving people. That the occupation is unjust. I care about Israel, but oppose the policy of its government.” I asked what she though was necessary? “Most helpful would be more of a dialog in the Jewish community in the United States.”
I met Desiree Farooz, a member of Code Pink from Arlington TX. “We are women for peace. End the occupation. Give the indigenous people of Palestine their country back. We bring some color and creativity to the movement. We are willing to sacrifice. We have women here who have sacrificed jobs on behalf of peace. Women who can’t stay at home. Can’t tolerate this bloodshed anymore.” I asked what she wanted to happen? “Arab American’s need to unite. More Palestinian American’s saying no to the occupation. More activism. A coalition of everyone to stand up to the injustice.”
I spoke with Ashley Wilkerson a young missionary from the United Methodist Church who was posted in Bethlehem for sixteen months and was now interning for the US Campaign, and serving as an Event Press Coordinator. She was listening to one of the speeches and a tear was rolling down her cheek. I asked what image she held from Bethlehem? “The Wall in Bethlehem is massive and it feels like it’s all around you. Someone in one of the refugee camps told me it’s around his heart. Every night the Israeli military came into Bethlehem and takes somebody. They broke into my room when I wasn’t there. There is no system of accountability.” I switched subjects and asked her if they had a count on the crowd? She got on her cell phone and a couple minutes later a number came back; “About 5000.” I had just guessed that number.
I have been to larger events on the mall. But speaker after speaker including Ambassador Ed Peck, Tony Bing, Judith LeBlank, Husam El-Nounou, Rabbi Jerry Milgom and Cindy and Craig Corrie and many more gave testimony to the climate of injustice that pervades the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem and robs Palestinians of their right to move freely, to earn a decent living, to support their families and to look forward to the future. I believe the facts of terror, suicide bombers targeting civilians and rockets hitting S’derot on a daily basis do not bring the people of Palestine closer to achieving their goals of justice, freedom and peace. But this was a day for recognizing the injustices of the occupation and the human rights of the Palestinian people.
After a group of rappers charged up the audience, the march began from the Capital to the base of the Washington Monument facing the White House. Drums beat, the crowd chanted and people carried signs along Independence Ave. as they advanced. The police were out in numbers assisted by a large contingent of orange vested volunteers.
And then it happened. The counter demonstration was waiting for the marchers along the parade route. Hundreds of Israeli activists carried signs that went from a simple plea for peace to repudiate Hamas to the announcement that it’s all Israel’s land. Some of the people were contained and some were screaming epithets with one young man waving his middle finger. Some of the chants by the anti-occupation marchers were positive while others made me uneasy.
I noticed a couple of young people, I’d say around twenty years of age holding an Israeli flag. I stopped to talk to them. Benjamin Franblum was from Bethesda, MD. I asked what brought him here today? “I came to make sure I wasn’t one of the one’s who didn’t. I want to fight now while its words. Their leadership is inciting violence. I want all Palestinians and all Israelis to be able to raise their families in human peace and dignity.”
I suggested that that was a most laudable goal. His friend Rachel noted that the marchers are “a lot of confused people. People who need to take self-responsibility to better their lives.” I didn’t answer her by saying that that was exactly what they were doing. I thanked them both and moved back into the crowded streets before I drew a crowd of my own. We marched on toward the White House and then quickly dispersed for the long march back to the buses at Union Station. Others stayed on for Monday’s lobbying effort.
There was no violence. However, my friend from the bus, Marilyn, happened to take a pretty nasty header hurrying back to Union Station. People believed that they stood up for Palestinian rights as rights due every human being and hoped that the world takes notice.
Larry Snider 6/11/07
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
PM Olmert Seeks Peace in Guardian Article
My Friends,
It's rare indeed when a Prime Minister of Israel writes an article for a liberal British paper that has been ruthless in its condemnation of the actions of the State of Israel and particularly of Ehud Olmert and his government in relation to his war in Lebanon. That said, he clearly has extended a fig leaf and is trying to rescue his sinking government. Maybe he's desperate enough to do something dramatic to achieve Peace. One can hope!
Shalom,
Larry
1967: Israel cannot make peace alone
We must pursue a comprehensive solution with energy and vision, writes Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert Wednesday June 6, 2007The Guardian
Six days, 40 years ago. Looking back to the weeks preceding the war, it may be difficult for you to imagine just how desperate life seemed for Israelis, ringed by peoples whose armies pointed their weapons towards us, whose leaders daily promised the imminent destruction of our state and whose newspapers carried crude cartoons of Jews being kicked off the face of the earth. As we consecrated mass graves in expectation of the worst, we were once again people facing annihilation. We had no alternative but to defend ourselves, no strategic allies to ensure our survival. We stood alone.
Our victory in those six days in June 1967 - swift, complete and totally unexpected - showed us and the world we were not going to be wiped off the map that easily. Israel fought an unwanted war to defend her very existence, and today there are still leaders who call for Israel to be wiped off the map. But there is a danger that that will be forgotten, overtaken by a re-reading of history. Our survival in 1967 is now, in the eyes of the world and, with worrying consequences in the UK, the original sin of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Our opponents argue against the ongoing "occupation" as if it were the Gordian knot of the conflict. If only we were to leave the territories the conflict would end. And they threaten international isolation if we do not.
If only the conflict were so simple; if only the answer were so simple. Over the last 15 years, successive Israeli governments have initiated talks with the Palestinians in every conceivable permutation in an attempt to reach a settlement. In the 1990s, Israel withdrew from all the Palestinian cities in the West Bank, handing its affairs over to a Palestinian Authority. Nearly two years ago, Israel withdrew its troops and civilians from Gaza, with no preconditions. Last year my Kadima party came to power on an agenda promising further withdrawals. In the face of concessions that have threatened our own domestic consensus, the constant refrain has been the Palestinian refusal to end its violent attacks on our citizens.
Palestinian violence is not a response to the capture of the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinian nationalism's roots are not so shallow. From the emergence of the Zionist movement over 100 years ago, Arabs have opposed our claim to independence on our historic homeland, often violently. Our conflict is not territorial, it is national.
The only way we can resolve the conflict is by establishing secure and recognised boundaries for the peoples of the region. It was on that basis we were able to conclude a peace treaty with Egypt, exchanging land for a peace that has endured for nearly 30 years. We did the same with Jordan. It is on the same basis that we will, I hope, be able to resolve our conflict with the Palestinians, with two peoples living in two states. Jerusalem, our eternal capital, can then be a city that represents peace rather than discord, a city for all its residents that does not distinguish between race, religion or class. Those are the principles that I myself implemented as mayor of the city for 10 years.
As a young politician I voted against the return of Sinai and peace with Egypt. I was mistaken. We will not hesitate to take bold initiatives to advance peace, even if they require heavy concessions. The legacies of Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, of Yitzhak Rabin and King Hussein, stand as an inspiration for all who work for peace.
We need such political maturity from our Palestinian partners now if they are to stop the internecine fighting that is tearing apart their society, exposing our citizens to a daily barrage of deadly rocketfire and preventing any progress on peace talks. Israel will not tolerate violence against its citizens, and my government will act decisively to protect them. But I also know that we will not resolve the crisis through military means alone. I will continue to meet Mahmoud Abbas, and discuss ways in which the Palestinian Authority can fight against lawlessness and extremism, and urge him to control the violence emanating from Gaza.
In the wider Arab world, there is ever greater recognition that Israel will not disappear from the map. I take the offer of full normalisation of relations between Israel and the Arab world seriously; and I am ready to discuss the Arab peace initiative in an open and sincere manner. Working with our Jordanian and Egyptian partners, and hopefully other Arab states, we must pursue a comprehensive peace with energy and vision. I look forward to being able to discuss this with our other neighbours. But the talks must be a discussion, not an ultimatum.
Israel is prepared to make painful concessions to pay the price for a lasting and just peace that will allow the people of the Middle East to live in dignity and security. But as strong and resourceful as Israelis are, we cannot make peace alone.
It's rare indeed when a Prime Minister of Israel writes an article for a liberal British paper that has been ruthless in its condemnation of the actions of the State of Israel and particularly of Ehud Olmert and his government in relation to his war in Lebanon. That said, he clearly has extended a fig leaf and is trying to rescue his sinking government. Maybe he's desperate enough to do something dramatic to achieve Peace. One can hope!
Shalom,
Larry
1967: Israel cannot make peace alone
We must pursue a comprehensive solution with energy and vision, writes Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert Wednesday June 6, 2007The Guardian
Six days, 40 years ago. Looking back to the weeks preceding the war, it may be difficult for you to imagine just how desperate life seemed for Israelis, ringed by peoples whose armies pointed their weapons towards us, whose leaders daily promised the imminent destruction of our state and whose newspapers carried crude cartoons of Jews being kicked off the face of the earth. As we consecrated mass graves in expectation of the worst, we were once again people facing annihilation. We had no alternative but to defend ourselves, no strategic allies to ensure our survival. We stood alone.
Our victory in those six days in June 1967 - swift, complete and totally unexpected - showed us and the world we were not going to be wiped off the map that easily. Israel fought an unwanted war to defend her very existence, and today there are still leaders who call for Israel to be wiped off the map. But there is a danger that that will be forgotten, overtaken by a re-reading of history. Our survival in 1967 is now, in the eyes of the world and, with worrying consequences in the UK, the original sin of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Our opponents argue against the ongoing "occupation" as if it were the Gordian knot of the conflict. If only we were to leave the territories the conflict would end. And they threaten international isolation if we do not.
If only the conflict were so simple; if only the answer were so simple. Over the last 15 years, successive Israeli governments have initiated talks with the Palestinians in every conceivable permutation in an attempt to reach a settlement. In the 1990s, Israel withdrew from all the Palestinian cities in the West Bank, handing its affairs over to a Palestinian Authority. Nearly two years ago, Israel withdrew its troops and civilians from Gaza, with no preconditions. Last year my Kadima party came to power on an agenda promising further withdrawals. In the face of concessions that have threatened our own domestic consensus, the constant refrain has been the Palestinian refusal to end its violent attacks on our citizens.
Palestinian violence is not a response to the capture of the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinian nationalism's roots are not so shallow. From the emergence of the Zionist movement over 100 years ago, Arabs have opposed our claim to independence on our historic homeland, often violently. Our conflict is not territorial, it is national.
The only way we can resolve the conflict is by establishing secure and recognised boundaries for the peoples of the region. It was on that basis we were able to conclude a peace treaty with Egypt, exchanging land for a peace that has endured for nearly 30 years. We did the same with Jordan. It is on the same basis that we will, I hope, be able to resolve our conflict with the Palestinians, with two peoples living in two states. Jerusalem, our eternal capital, can then be a city that represents peace rather than discord, a city for all its residents that does not distinguish between race, religion or class. Those are the principles that I myself implemented as mayor of the city for 10 years.
As a young politician I voted against the return of Sinai and peace with Egypt. I was mistaken. We will not hesitate to take bold initiatives to advance peace, even if they require heavy concessions. The legacies of Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, of Yitzhak Rabin and King Hussein, stand as an inspiration for all who work for peace.
We need such political maturity from our Palestinian partners now if they are to stop the internecine fighting that is tearing apart their society, exposing our citizens to a daily barrage of deadly rocketfire and preventing any progress on peace talks. Israel will not tolerate violence against its citizens, and my government will act decisively to protect them. But I also know that we will not resolve the crisis through military means alone. I will continue to meet Mahmoud Abbas, and discuss ways in which the Palestinian Authority can fight against lawlessness and extremism, and urge him to control the violence emanating from Gaza.
In the wider Arab world, there is ever greater recognition that Israel will not disappear from the map. I take the offer of full normalisation of relations between Israel and the Arab world seriously; and I am ready to discuss the Arab peace initiative in an open and sincere manner. Working with our Jordanian and Egyptian partners, and hopefully other Arab states, we must pursue a comprehensive peace with energy and vision. I look forward to being able to discuss this with our other neighbours. But the talks must be a discussion, not an ultimatum.
Israel is prepared to make painful concessions to pay the price for a lasting and just peace that will allow the people of the Middle East to live in dignity and security. But as strong and resourceful as Israelis are, we cannot make peace alone.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
A Merger to put Meat on the Bones of the American Jewish Peace Movement
My Friends,
People like me and many many others have been talking for years about creating one large semi-powerful American Jewish Peace Organization to stand up to the right, to AIPAC and gain some prominence in the halls of Congress. It's one of those self-evident facts that somehow nobody ever acts on, like two states for two peoples. When you listen to Democratic candidates like Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama gesticulate before the minyons of AIPAC and then realize that the organization has built a secure 400 vote mega-majority in Congress you have some idea of how easy it is for Goliath to win against a collection of peace groups together adding up to one very weak David and often stepping on each others toes in the bargain. So maybe three groups can equal one organization and one organization can put some meat on the bones of the Jewish peace movement. [My apology to vegetarians]. See the following article from the Forward.
Blessings,
Larry
THE FORWARD: Dovish Groups Mull Mega-Merger In Bid To Build Peace Powerhouse
Nathan Guttman Wed. May 30, 2007
Washington — Merger talks are heating up among three leading dovish Israel advocacy groups in a development that proponents hope will produce a new mega-organization with greater political clout and more money to push for a two-state solution.
Leaders of Americans for Peace Now, the Israel Policy Forum and Brit Tzedek v’Shalom are weighing the idea and are expected to reach a decision by the fall. The discussions are being held within each of the groups and between leaders of the three organizations, under the auspices of several Washington-based activists who are promoting the idea of a pro-peace Jewish lobby.
The idea of forming a joint left-leaning entity — that some portray as a dovish counter to the existing pro-Israel lobby — has been bouncing around for six months and was initially seen as being backed by billionaire George Soros. At this point, according to organizers, Soros is out, but the talks have reached the final stages with at least two options on the table.
Some liberal observers are hoping that a new joint entity could emerge as a counter to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobby that doves have accused of working against efforts to convince the White House to do more to advance Israeli-Palestinian talks. Organizers of the new initiative are publicly dismissing any talk of weakening or competing against Aipac; at the same time, they insist that the goal is to create a new voice for American Jews.
“This is about creating something new, big and bold,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, a main proponent of the current merger talks. A former Clinton administration aide, Ben-Ami is now a senior executive at Fenton Communications.
Proponents of the merger aim to raise $10 million — double the combined annual budgets of the three organizations — to help launch the new initiative. Part of the money would come from contributors who already back the three existing groups, but most of the $10 million — if the goal is reached — is expected to come from donors who currently do not give to Jewish organizations or to other pro-Israel groups. Among the potential donors being targeted are Jewish figures in Hollywood, as well as young liberal Jewish philanthropists who currently focus their giving on non-Jewish causes Soros attended only one of the first meetings about the initiative, but he eventually dropped out. Other activists and donors have continued pushing the idea forward.
In addition to Ben-Ami, the list of organizers includes Daniel Levy, one-time adviser to then-Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, and Jim Gerstein, a Democratic strategist who is active in pro-peace organizations.
According to sources familiar with the talks, the organizations are being asked to choose between two options: instituting a formal merger that would create a joint pro-peace organization under which the three existing groups would continue to operate, or creating a separate new body that would raise funds independently and provide financial assistance and backing to projects directed by the existing groups.
Originally, Jewish activists behind the new initiative had planned to come up with an agreed structure and a strong commitment for financial backing by this summer, but difficulties in fundraising, and drawn-out discussions within the groups, forced a postponement of the target date for launching the new project.
“Jews like to talk; it takes time,” an official close to the negotiations said. After initially discussing the idea in small forums, it was recently brought to larger circles within the leadership of all three groups. The first meeting took place Tuesday between IPF and APN leaders, without the presence of the initiative’s outside organizers. The two groups discussed not only the prospects of the new initiative but also the question of whether it should include a grass-roots organization such as Brit Tzedek. Many of those involved in the new initiative are remaining tight-lipped and have asked their members to keep the negotiations away from the public eye. When asked about the talks, officials with all three groups refused to discuss details.
David Elcott, IPF’s executive director, said that “the groups are talking with each other, and that is a good thing.” Diane Cantor, executive director of Brit Tzedek, called the situation “fluid” and said that “it is encouraging to see there is such willingness to work together.” Ori Nir, APN’s spokesman and the Forward’s former Washington correspondent, said that “APN is taking part in talks about the new initiative with the hope that these discussions will lead to positive results.”
Despite the general reluctance to delve into details, some officials and lay leaders involved in the project provided the Forward with Iinformation on the proposed structure and the obstacles that the initiative is facing.
According to sources close to the talks, the new organization would tap the specific expertise of each of the member groups: Brit Tzedek would continue to coordinate its grass-roots operation, IPF would focus on formulating policy proposals and APN would lead the lobbying efforts. The division of responsibilities would not be rigid, and APN and IPF are expected to overlap on policy and advocacy work. Each group would maintain its fundraising operations, with the money raised by the joint project added on to their respective budgets. Discussions have yet to focus on the structure of the proposed entity’s joint leadership and its process for hiring staffers and staking out positions.
Currently, the three groups raise about $5 million a year for their work in America. APN’s budget nears $3 million, but a third of the money is sent to the Israeli organization Peace Now; IPF raises $2 million, and Brit Tzedek $1 million. Ideologically, all three groups agree on the need to strengthen Israel through promoting the peace process. They all call for stepped-up American diplomatic efforts on this front. Still, differences exist. APN, for example, focues a more resources and monitoring and criticizing Israeli settlement policy.
Sources close to the initiative say IPF now seems to be the group most reluctant to move forward with the merger. These sources say that IPF, with the largest staff of the three groups, worries that it could lose some of its power by joining a larger framework. For APN, one of the main problems would be the question of how to maintain ties with its Israeli mother ship, Peace Now. And for Brit Tzedek, a significant issue would be maintaining the group’s identity when joining with two older and more established organizations.
Some participants are also wondering whether a unified structure would end up weakening the influence of the organizations involved. “Is one voice better than many voices?” asked one of the activists involved, pointing to the fact that one joint group might be less visible on Capitol Hill than several smaller ones.
The new project has yet to be given a formal name. Those involved refer to it in jest as the “J Street Project.” This is a Washington insider’s joke referencing the fact that there is no J in the city’s alphabetical street grid, and playing off the name of the Republican plan to change the political face of the lobbying industry that is situated on K Street.
This joke also underscores the skepticism with which the new initiative is met by many in the Jewish community, including some of the activists involved in the project. The time that has passed since the initiative was first introduced; the lengthy deliberations within the participating groups, and the difficulty in raising the core sum needed to launch the project, all have fed this sense of skepticism about the project’s future. One reason for the delays is the fact that talks with donors were practically put on hold until the three groups are able to come to a decision on the proposed merger.
The project got off to a difficult start after being initially portrayed as a challenge to Aipac. Ever since, those involved in the initiative make it a point not to talk about Aipac. They also avoid positioning themselves as a counterweight to what is seen as the hawkish pro-Israel lobby.
Yet in private conversations, the issue of serving as a dovish balance to Aipac is discussed frequently. One activist involved in the initiative spoke of the need to send Congress a message that “there are other voices in the community” and that lawmakers “don’t have to automatically support unnecessary resolutions” about Israel. Another activist said that many in the Jewish community “are dying” to present an alternative to Aipac on issues relating to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. At the same time, all those involved stressed their strong appreciation for Aipac’s role in supporting and strengthening Israel. They made clear that the new group — if and when created — would not aim to challenge or replace Aipac as the leading pro-Israel lobby.
Wed. May 30, 2007
People like me and many many others have been talking for years about creating one large semi-powerful American Jewish Peace Organization to stand up to the right, to AIPAC and gain some prominence in the halls of Congress. It's one of those self-evident facts that somehow nobody ever acts on, like two states for two peoples. When you listen to Democratic candidates like Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama gesticulate before the minyons of AIPAC and then realize that the organization has built a secure 400 vote mega-majority in Congress you have some idea of how easy it is for Goliath to win against a collection of peace groups together adding up to one very weak David and often stepping on each others toes in the bargain. So maybe three groups can equal one organization and one organization can put some meat on the bones of the Jewish peace movement. [My apology to vegetarians]. See the following article from the Forward.
Blessings,
Larry
THE FORWARD: Dovish Groups Mull Mega-Merger In Bid To Build Peace Powerhouse
Nathan Guttman Wed. May 30, 2007
Washington — Merger talks are heating up among three leading dovish Israel advocacy groups in a development that proponents hope will produce a new mega-organization with greater political clout and more money to push for a two-state solution.
Leaders of Americans for Peace Now, the Israel Policy Forum and Brit Tzedek v’Shalom are weighing the idea and are expected to reach a decision by the fall. The discussions are being held within each of the groups and between leaders of the three organizations, under the auspices of several Washington-based activists who are promoting the idea of a pro-peace Jewish lobby.
The idea of forming a joint left-leaning entity — that some portray as a dovish counter to the existing pro-Israel lobby — has been bouncing around for six months and was initially seen as being backed by billionaire George Soros. At this point, according to organizers, Soros is out, but the talks have reached the final stages with at least two options on the table.
Some liberal observers are hoping that a new joint entity could emerge as a counter to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobby that doves have accused of working against efforts to convince the White House to do more to advance Israeli-Palestinian talks. Organizers of the new initiative are publicly dismissing any talk of weakening or competing against Aipac; at the same time, they insist that the goal is to create a new voice for American Jews.
“This is about creating something new, big and bold,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, a main proponent of the current merger talks. A former Clinton administration aide, Ben-Ami is now a senior executive at Fenton Communications.
Proponents of the merger aim to raise $10 million — double the combined annual budgets of the three organizations — to help launch the new initiative. Part of the money would come from contributors who already back the three existing groups, but most of the $10 million — if the goal is reached — is expected to come from donors who currently do not give to Jewish organizations or to other pro-Israel groups. Among the potential donors being targeted are Jewish figures in Hollywood, as well as young liberal Jewish philanthropists who currently focus their giving on non-Jewish causes Soros attended only one of the first meetings about the initiative, but he eventually dropped out. Other activists and donors have continued pushing the idea forward.
In addition to Ben-Ami, the list of organizers includes Daniel Levy, one-time adviser to then-Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, and Jim Gerstein, a Democratic strategist who is active in pro-peace organizations.
According to sources familiar with the talks, the organizations are being asked to choose between two options: instituting a formal merger that would create a joint pro-peace organization under which the three existing groups would continue to operate, or creating a separate new body that would raise funds independently and provide financial assistance and backing to projects directed by the existing groups.
Originally, Jewish activists behind the new initiative had planned to come up with an agreed structure and a strong commitment for financial backing by this summer, but difficulties in fundraising, and drawn-out discussions within the groups, forced a postponement of the target date for launching the new project.
“Jews like to talk; it takes time,” an official close to the negotiations said. After initially discussing the idea in small forums, it was recently brought to larger circles within the leadership of all three groups. The first meeting took place Tuesday between IPF and APN leaders, without the presence of the initiative’s outside organizers. The two groups discussed not only the prospects of the new initiative but also the question of whether it should include a grass-roots organization such as Brit Tzedek. Many of those involved in the new initiative are remaining tight-lipped and have asked their members to keep the negotiations away from the public eye. When asked about the talks, officials with all three groups refused to discuss details.
David Elcott, IPF’s executive director, said that “the groups are talking with each other, and that is a good thing.” Diane Cantor, executive director of Brit Tzedek, called the situation “fluid” and said that “it is encouraging to see there is such willingness to work together.” Ori Nir, APN’s spokesman and the Forward’s former Washington correspondent, said that “APN is taking part in talks about the new initiative with the hope that these discussions will lead to positive results.”
Despite the general reluctance to delve into details, some officials and lay leaders involved in the project provided the Forward with Iinformation on the proposed structure and the obstacles that the initiative is facing.
According to sources close to the talks, the new organization would tap the specific expertise of each of the member groups: Brit Tzedek would continue to coordinate its grass-roots operation, IPF would focus on formulating policy proposals and APN would lead the lobbying efforts. The division of responsibilities would not be rigid, and APN and IPF are expected to overlap on policy and advocacy work. Each group would maintain its fundraising operations, with the money raised by the joint project added on to their respective budgets. Discussions have yet to focus on the structure of the proposed entity’s joint leadership and its process for hiring staffers and staking out positions.
Currently, the three groups raise about $5 million a year for their work in America. APN’s budget nears $3 million, but a third of the money is sent to the Israeli organization Peace Now; IPF raises $2 million, and Brit Tzedek $1 million. Ideologically, all three groups agree on the need to strengthen Israel through promoting the peace process. They all call for stepped-up American diplomatic efforts on this front. Still, differences exist. APN, for example, focues a more resources and monitoring and criticizing Israeli settlement policy.
Sources close to the initiative say IPF now seems to be the group most reluctant to move forward with the merger. These sources say that IPF, with the largest staff of the three groups, worries that it could lose some of its power by joining a larger framework. For APN, one of the main problems would be the question of how to maintain ties with its Israeli mother ship, Peace Now. And for Brit Tzedek, a significant issue would be maintaining the group’s identity when joining with two older and more established organizations.
Some participants are also wondering whether a unified structure would end up weakening the influence of the organizations involved. “Is one voice better than many voices?” asked one of the activists involved, pointing to the fact that one joint group might be less visible on Capitol Hill than several smaller ones.
The new project has yet to be given a formal name. Those involved refer to it in jest as the “J Street Project.” This is a Washington insider’s joke referencing the fact that there is no J in the city’s alphabetical street grid, and playing off the name of the Republican plan to change the political face of the lobbying industry that is situated on K Street.
This joke also underscores the skepticism with which the new initiative is met by many in the Jewish community, including some of the activists involved in the project. The time that has passed since the initiative was first introduced; the lengthy deliberations within the participating groups, and the difficulty in raising the core sum needed to launch the project, all have fed this sense of skepticism about the project’s future. One reason for the delays is the fact that talks with donors were practically put on hold until the three groups are able to come to a decision on the proposed merger.
The project got off to a difficult start after being initially portrayed as a challenge to Aipac. Ever since, those involved in the initiative make it a point not to talk about Aipac. They also avoid positioning themselves as a counterweight to what is seen as the hawkish pro-Israel lobby.
Yet in private conversations, the issue of serving as a dovish balance to Aipac is discussed frequently. One activist involved in the initiative spoke of the need to send Congress a message that “there are other voices in the community” and that lawmakers “don’t have to automatically support unnecessary resolutions” about Israel. Another activist said that many in the Jewish community “are dying” to present an alternative to Aipac on issues relating to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. At the same time, all those involved stressed their strong appreciation for Aipac’s role in supporting and strengthening Israel. They made clear that the new group — if and when created — would not aim to challenge or replace Aipac as the leading pro-Israel lobby.
Wed. May 30, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
