Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Progressive Neighbors Debates Maryland's Foreign Policy


Lots of issues came up at the Progressive Neighbors Forum in Takoma Park yesterday but the issue that generated the most heat was American Studies Association boycott (ASA) of Israeli scholarly institutions.

Two bills have been cross-filed in the Maryland General Assembly directed at undermining the ASA boycott. Montgomery Del. Ben Kramer has filed HB 998 with a number of cosponsors: Delegates Barkley, Barve, Bates, Boteler, Cardin, Cluster, Costa, Cullison, Eckardt, Frank, Fraser, Hidalgo, Frick, Gaines, Gilchrist, Glenn, Haddaway, Riccio, Hogan, Hucker, Impallaria, Jacobs, Kach, Kaiser, A. Kelly, Kipke, Lafferty, Luedtke, McComas, McConkey, W. Miller, Morhaim, Myers, Olszewski, Otto, Pendergrass, Ready, Reznik, B. Robinson, S. Robinson, Rosenberg, Serafini, Simmons, Stein, Stocksdale, Szeliga, Valderrama, Vaughn, Waldstreicher, M. Washington, Weir, Wood, and Zucker.  Due to timing, Baltimore Sen. Joan Carter Conway did not have time to seek cosponsors for the parallel bill in the Senate, SB 647.

Peace Action Montgomery distributed flyers at the forum (see page 1 above with 2 and 3 below) arguing strongly against the bill as unconstitutional and just plain wrong. Although many in the audience opposed the bill--no one in the audience expressed support--the bill is not on Progressive Neighbors' very lengthy priority list.

Sen. Roger Manno was in the line of fire at the meeting. He attacked the boycott and defended the bill's central goal in the Washington Jewish Week:
In an interview after the hearing Manno explained, “My responsibility as a lawmaker and as a member of the Senate budget and taxation committee, which writes that check, is to ensure that the dollars are spent wisely and that it reflects the values of our community. … And we don’t support [the boycott that the ASA is supporting].”
The same article notes that UMBC has issued a statement condemning the ASA boycott, as have many academic institutions.

There is a certain irony to Peace Action Montgomery's opposition to the bill. The boycott's proponents handed out flyers lauding the long history of boycotts to promote social justice from India to South Africa . . . in order to condemn the proposal that the State of Maryland boycott ASA as a statement in support of its view of a more just world.

Thought experiment: What would Peace Action Montgomery's response be to a proposed ASA boycott of HBCUs?

The arguments that the bill violates academic freedom are specious. The proposed legislation would not ban any professor from supporting ASA's boycott, attending ASA conferences, or membership in ASA. It just wouldn't permit Maryland institutions to pay for it. Universities regularly decide which scholarly activities they deem worthy of support. We may not agree with them but the State has a right to decide how to spend its money and which endeavors to support.

In political science, we are experiencing this up close. Oklahoma Republican Sen. Coburn successfully amended the bill that funds the National Science Foundation so that grants may only go to proposals that aid national security. As you might suspect, this has not gone down well with most political scientists. But no one questions its constitutionality or claims it violates the First Amendment.

This issue has a profound potential to alienate Jewish Democrats and other supporters of Israel. I believe heavy majorities of Jewish Democrats strongly support, even yearn for, a negotiated peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Secretary of State John Kerry is working doggedly to address the real barriers to a workable and lasting peace despite extreme difficulties. Nonetheless, ASA's efforts to isolate Israel offend deeply and undercut them. Jews may not be unanimous on this issue (we seem incapable of it; just watch either the Knesset or Life of Brian) but the vast majority strongly oppose efforts to boycott Israel.

Not to mention that Israeli universities are often the center of efforts to build peace within Israel, which makes one suspect that the academic body of scholars focused on studying America perhaps doesn't know too much about it. Regardless, I imagine that I am not the only one amazed at the idea that the world awaits with bated breath the opinion of academic organizations on various issues of the day, particularly those completely outside that organization's area of expertise. (OK: irony of blog-writing academic condemning pronouncements on issues of the day by academics is duly noted.)

Jews are passionate for peace and for Israel. Trying to make them choose is a losing strategy. I don't think legislators or candidates are going to find it easy to straddle this issue.


Read More...

Friday, July 30, 2010

Peace Action Montgomery Responds to Kramer

Peace Action Montgomery has sent the following response to Delegate Ben Kramer's (D-19) criticism of its questionnaire referencing Israel.

July 26, 2010

Delegate Ben Kramer
17511 Applewood Lane
Rockville, MD 20855

Dear Delegate Kramer:
We are responding to your July 20 letter that criticized a candidate questionnaire created and distributed by Peace Action Montgomery, as well as the motives and values of our organization.

Before we respond to your specific complaints, we would like to present our beliefs and goals, as stated on our Web site:

Our Beliefs
Military intervention is not a suitable response to conflict.
Ordinary people can change the world.

Our Goals
Peace in the Middle East
• An end to current U.S.‐led and U.S.‐funded military occupations (Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine)
• Prevention of future wars (such as in Pakistan or Iran)
• Reparations and developmental aid for victims

A Peace Economy at Home
• Reduced military spending and an end to war profiteering
• Restrictions on military recruitment in schools, replaced by real economic opportunities for youth
• Generous benefits for veterans

Peace through Human Rights and International Cooperation
• Robust international diplomacy
• Protection of civil and human rights, including an end to torture
• Full, independent investigations of violations to the rule of law

Our questionnaire to candidates for state office, sent out July 16 and 17, is in keeping with our stated goals (see enclosed questionnaire). The five questions focus on issues that are within the purview of state‐level officials. For all questions, candidates were asked to respond “yes” or “no” and offered the opportunity to explain or qualify their responses.

The one question to which you took great exception cited International Court of Justice rulings that Israel’s separation wall and settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are illegal and asked candidates if they would support a bill to order the state’s pension system to divest from holdings in companies that knowingly participate in these illegal activities.

Instead of answering any of the questions, you wrote us a letter in which you stated that you not only rejected our “less than subtle anti‐zionist, anti‐semitic ‘questionnaire,’ ” but that you would also encourage your fellow candidates in Montgomery County and across the state to reject it as well.

Passions run high on this issue, but that is no excuse for calling a group like Peace Action Montgomery anti‐Semitic. We vehemently oppose anti‐Semitism and bigotry and are offended at being defamed for our support for human rights. Just as opposing the war in Afghanistan does not make us anti‐American, opposing Israeli government policies does not make us anti‐Semitic.

Would you call anti‐Semitic the 60 percent of the Israeli general public who in a poll conducted in early March 2010 supported “dismantling most of the settlements in the territories as part of a peace agreement with the Palestinians”? (Poll conducted by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Harry S. Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace.)

Peace in the Middle East is one of Peace Action Montgomery’s major goals. We assume that you, too, desire peace in the Middle East. We therefore invite you to join us in a public debate on the issue of how best to advance a just resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. We plan to propose the same idea to the Washington Jewish Week, which also received your letter to us, and invite them to co‐moderate the event, along with a representative of another organization.

We sincerely hope that you will accept this proposal for a much‐needed forum for dialogue on this significant issue. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Jean Athey, coordinator
Peace Action Montgomery
Enclosure

cc: Washington Jewish Week



Read More...

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Ben Kramer, Mike Lenett Rip Peace Action Montgomery

Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19) and Senator Mike Lenett (D-19) have responded harshly to a question by Peace Action Montgomery on its recent questionnaire to MoCo candidates. OK, "harshly" doesn't do it justice!

David Lublin posted Peace Action's questionnaire a couple weeks ago and identified this question as likely posing controversy:

5. In the past, the Maryland state legislature has exercised its power to order the state’s pension system to divest its holdings in companies that are complicit in illegal activities in other countries. The World Court has ruled that Israel’s separation wall and settlements in the West Bank are illegal. Would you support a similar divestment bill targeting companies that knowingly participate in these illegal activities in Israel?
Delegate Ben Kramer, who is running for re-election, sent this response:

July 20, 2010

Peace Action Montgomery
P.O. Box 1653
Olney, Maryland 20830

To Whom it May Concern:

I read your questionnaire with interest and was prepared to offer responses until I read the fifth and final question.

It is with great offense and disgust that I read the fifth question (statement), equating the State of Israel's efforts to defend itself from terrorism with nations that promote the very terrorism which has plagued the people of Israel.

The Maryland State Legislature has exercised its power to order the state's pension system to divest its holdings in companies that do business with nations that sponsor and support terrorism and genocide. Your twisted and convoluted efforts to draw a comparison between Israel's need to protect its residents, (Jews and non-Jews alike) from the daily savagery of terrorist bombers and murderers, to the atrocities of terrorist nations, reveals your ignorance and prejudice.

You are apparently under the mistaken belief that the role of the Jew is to be complicit in his/her own death and contentedly succumb as a willing victim to the overwhelming numbers of hostile neighbors, who surround the only bastion of democracy in the Middle East.

Therefore, in response to your anti-zionist, anti-semitic "questionnaire," I offer you the following:

As a member of the Maryland State Legislature, I will make every possible effort to ensure that Maryland maintains the strongest cultural and economic ties with the State of Israel. I will do my very best to influence any and all colleagues in the Maryland General Assembly to do the same.

Furthermore, I will encourage all of my fellow candidates, here in Montgomery County and across the State, to reject your less than subtle anti-zionist, anti-semitic "questionnaire" and appropriately dispose of it.

Please convey to your 2,700 "dues-paying" members my response and let them know that if they embrace your position on this issue, that I have no interest in their support or vote.

Ben Kramer

Senator Mike Lenett sent this response:

July 27, 2010

Peace Action Montgomery
P.O. Box 1653
Olney, Maryland 20830

Dear Peace Action Montgomery:

I wholeheartedly share the views so well expressed by Delegate Ben Kramer in his letter to you dated July 20, 2010. I take extreme offense at Question 5 of your survey, which equates Israel’s defensive actions to protect its very existence with the actions of nations that sponsor terrorism. Delegate Kramer said it all and I could not improve upon his words. Like him, I will dispose of your questionnaire and I do not care what you convey to your members.

Sincerely,

Mike Lenett
Several other politicians tell us that they did not bother to send back the questionnaire because of the anti-Israel question. As a result, this will go down as one of the least effective questionnaires of the cycle.

Read More...

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Give War a Chance?

The recent conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza has revealed, yet again, the difficulty of achieving any lasting victory or peace in the Middle East. Israel has shown it can make Gazans pay a fierce price for Hamas's continued insistence on launching missiles aimed a civilian targets inside Israel. However, it appears unable to dislodge Hamas from Gaza or totally stop violence from the Palestinian side.

The approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict on the Israeli side will be determined by upcoming elections. A Likud victory will likely lead to a harder Israeli line, as during when Yitzhak Shamir was Prime Minister, though Menachem Begin negotiated the peace treaty with Egypt. Electoral success by Kadima and Labor make meaningful peace talks more likely, though as in any democracy they remain constrained by public opinion.

Kadima and Labor currently lead the government and were clearly trailing Likud until the recent war in Gaza--widely supportted by Jewish Israelis. However, the latest poll shows Kadima and Labor show a tight race. Kadima, Labor, Meretz, and the Arab parties would win 54 seats in the 120 member Knesset. Likud and three parties to its right would win 51 seats.

Two religious parties--Shas and United Torah Judaism--would gain he remaining 15 seats. Religious parties, often seen as more natural allies of the right but also often willing to work with the left--would hold the balance of power. Alternatively, Israel may see a Likud-Labor-Kadima government.

Meanwhile, signs on the Palestinian side aren't especially encouraging this week. Haaretz--the major left-leaning Israeli daily--reports that Hamas remains opposed to peace talks:

A senior Hamas official on Sunday said that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement must end peace negotiations with Israel before any reconciliation talks can take place. . . .

He also demanded that the PA end security coordination with Israel, and maintained that the Israeli-Palestinian peace process had ended.

"Those who committed mistakes must correct their mistakes through a clear and frank declaration to stop security coordination with the [Israeli] occupation, release [Hamas] prisoners and later end negotiations [with Israel] because the peace process is irreversibly over," said Hamdan.

"It's time for us to talk about a reconciliation based on a resistance program to liberate the [occupied] territory and regain rights," he added.
Hamas appears determined to follow a strategy that has failed for 60 years. Palestinians can certainly bring violence to Israelis but only at a price that brings even greater violence down on their own people. Yet "Give War a Chance!" seems to be the continuing approach from Gaza's rulers.

P.S. Unsigned comments may be deleted in the name of pursuing civility instead of another blog flame war on this topic.

Read More...

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Annapolis Foreign Policy Watch

If Gov. Martin O'Malley can negotiate peace between the House of Delegates and the Senate, I suppose we are truly living in wondrous times, so why shouldn't peace be made between the Israelis and the Palestinians in Annapolis?

On the other hand, the city's role in the crafting of the Constitution is only guardedly auspicious. When delegates from met in Annapolis in 1786, they agreed that they would meet next year in Philadelphia. Of the thirteen colonies, only five states sent delegates. Maryland, showing the leadership that would leave Virginia as the mother of presidents and Maryland as the mother of Spiro Agnew, did not send delegates to the Convention held in its own capital.

Low expectations are clearly the order of the day in Annapolis. While the general shape of a settlement has been apparent for sometime, no one seems to know how to get from here to there. The main players in the drama are all weakened leaders. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert can only envy President George Bush's dismal approval ratings. One poll showed that 65% of Israelis think that Olmert has no mandate to go to Annapolis and make major concessions; a majority want him removed from office. Such things matter in a democracy and Israeli is a lively, if fractious, one.

Meanwhile, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is really only president in the West Bank as Hamas rules the Gaza Strip. The Gaza strip is small but extremely densely populated, containing over one-third of the Palestinian population. Abbas, as affable as Arab leaders appear to come, is weak too and any willingness to compromise, crucial to negotiations, will be interpreted as weakness. Hamas is already declaring that Abbas has no right to concede an inch of Palestine.

The future is even more dismal. Likud Leader Benjamin Netanyahu appears like to win the next Israeli elections and return as a prime minister opposed to the peace process. It seems unlikely that Abbas could be replaced by a leader more willing to negotiate a peace settlement.

The problems of negotiating peace remain high even leaving aside the current dearth of leadership. Bernard Lewis outlined the problems on the Palestinian side in an opinion piece heavily on realism which is needed here even if it can be as unwelcome as a splash of cold water in the morning:

The first question (one might think it is obvious but apparently not) is, "What is the conflict about?" There are basically two possibilities: that it is about the size of Israel, or about its existence.

If the issue is about the size of Israel, then we have a straightforward border problem, like Alsace-Lorraine or Texas. That is to say, not easy, but possible to solve in the long run, and to live with in the meantime.

If, on the other hand, the issue is the existence of Israel, then clearly it is insoluble by negotiation. There is no compromise position between existing and not existing, and no conceivable government of Israel is going to negotiate on whether that country should or should not exist.

PLO and other Palestinian spokesmen have, from time to time, given formal indications of recognition of Israel in their diplomatic discourse in foreign languages. But that's not the message delivered at home in Arabic, in everything from primary school textbooks to political speeches and religious sermons. Here the terms used in Arabic denote, not the end of hostilities, but an armistice or truce, until such time that the war against Israel can be resumed with better prospects for success. Without genuine acceptance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State, as the more than 20 members of the Arab League exist as Arab States, or the much larger number of members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference exist as Islamic states, peace cannot be negotiated.

The second problem is that there is the lack of any sign that any Palestinian leader seems able bind his people to an agreement. Leaving aside the current question of Hamas, no Palestinian leader has shown the ability and the inclination to prevent Palestinian attacks on Israel except as part of a short-term strategy.

The Israelis also have a sizable opposition to a peace agreement for a variety of reasons as well. A small minority will even take up arms. The difference is that the Israeli government has shown the ability to enforce discipline on its own people when it desires as demonstrated by the withdrawal of settlers from Gaza.

Is it any wonder that the Bush administration is trying to keep expectations low?

Read More...