| Author | Message | | dangerousdna | | Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:57 pm Post subject: Historic opportunity on Israel/Palestine |
| Historic opportunity on Israel/Palestine
Ralph Nader intends to make Israel-Palestine an issue in the
election.
To do so he needs your help. Below are two emails I recently sent
out
on this to potential allies. I hope you will forward this email to
your
colleagues. Nader may be able to create a historic opportunity if
advocates for peace in Palestine use his campaign as an advocacy
tool.
Kevin
We need people to write letters to the editor of the Washington Post
immediately. TODAY! We need all the support we can get to take on
the
Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Already, the Washington Post has weighed with a horrid editorial
comparing Nader to racists over his views on Israeli-Palestine.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Aug13.html
Below is my letter to the author, with a copy to his boss and the
ombudsman.
It would be great if people could write letters to the editor -- to
indicate the Posts failure to be honest about the relationship
between
Israel and Palestine. Even Sen. Joe Lieberman euphemistally calls
it a
"special relationship." Perhaps the Post could point to the US
government failing to oppose human rights violations of
Palestinians,
demolitions of thousands of homes of innocent Palestinians,
violation
of
UN resolutions, the deaths of innocent Palestinian civilians and
assaination of Palestinian issues. Or, they could explain why a
tiny
country the size of New Jersey gets more foreign aid than the
continent
of Africa with its poverty, starvation, disease and military
conflict?
Not just more -- ten times more!
Nader will not back down on this issue. He realizes he will take
slings
and arrows -- or worse -- for standing up on to Israel but he sees
it
as
critical to world peace, justice and human rights. Indeed, if he is
successful in making the "special relationship" we have had with
Israel
for fifty years an issue doing so will make running for president
(and
all the hardship that has entailed) worth it.
Send your letter to letters@washpost.org. Send it quickly as I'm
sure
the pro-Israel lobby is sending lots of letters and letters will be
published in the next 24-48 hours.
Kevin
Mr. Wittes:
c: Fred Hiatt
Michael Getler
As you know, you misled readers by not fully quoting Ralph Nader in
your
editorial today in order to make your faulty comparison with a racist
group possible. Below is the email I sent you with the full
quotation,
indeed the full speech. In your editorial you left out the punch
line
in order to make your faulty analogy work.
Your editorial said:
"The days when the chief Israeli puppeteer comes to the United States
and meets with the puppet in the White House and then proceeds to
Capitol Hill, where he meets with hundreds of other puppets, should
be
replaced. The Washington Puppet Show should be replaced."
However, as you are well aware, the quotation did not end with
"replaced" and even though you failed to indicate that you cut out
part
of the paragraph you left out the punchline which said:
"The Washington Puppet Show should be replaced by the Washington
Peace
Show. And then we'll get more peace in the world, and we will reward
all
those taxpayer dollars and all those high energy prices that have
been
sacrificed because of the lack of steadfastness of our federal
government under both parties to address that very resolvable
conflict
between the Israelis and the Palestinians."
It would have at least been honest and more in context to end by
including "The Washington Puppet Show should be replaced by the
Washington Peace Show. . . ." But, indeed, the next sentence more
fully
explained Nader's position.
Therefore I am requesting an editorial correction AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE
so
that this false description of Mr. Nader's position does not spread
any
more than it already has. The editorial correction should state that
Mr. Nader's quotation was cut in mid-paragraph without indication of
it
being cut. The correct, full quotation is:
"The days when the chief Israeli puppeteer comes to the United States
and meets with the puppet in the White House and then proceeds to
Capitol Hill, where he meets with hundreds of other puppets, should
be
replaced. The Washington Puppet Show should be replaced by the
Washington Peace Show. And then we'll get more peace in the world,
and
we will reward all those taxpayer dollars and all those high energy
prices that have been sacrificed because of the lack of
steadfastness
of
our federal government under both parties to address that very
resolvable conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians."
Further, your editorial was unfair, to take a phrase out of context
in
order to compare Mr. Nader to a despised group. No doubt, I could
take
a phrase out of a pro-war editorial of the Post and compare it to a
statement of Hitler -- but that would not be fair or ethical, neither
was your editorial.
Finally, I found the adjective "breezy" to be a strange and
inaccurate
description of a three page single-spaced letter with ten pages of
attachments (among them the Israeli Military Refuseniks and a
statement
of over 400 Rabbiis) that Mr. Nader sent to Mr. Foxman -- thorough,
all-encompassing, serious, inquisitive -- are all more accurate --
breezy?
Kevin
-------------------------------
Kevin Z wrote:
> URGENT PLEASE FORWARD THIS WIDELY
> AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE THE PARADIGM ON ISRAEL AND PALESTINE
>
> As you know Ralph Nader feels passionately about the
Israel-Palestine
issue, how the United States handles it and the need for a real
peace
process. He sees the Israeli government as the puppetmaster of the
US
government when it comes to this issue. He has said this many times.
>
> The Anti-Defmation League responded to this by writing a critical
letter of Nader and publishing it widely -- implying he was
anti-semetic. Nader saw this as an opportunity to lay out the case
for
a
different approach to Israel-Palestine -- one where the US thinks
for
itself, and highlights the peace movements in Israel and Palestine
rather than the militaristic Sharon government.
>
> You can read Nader's response to the ADL at:
http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=119
>
> The ADL responded, see below, now we need your help to escalate
this
issue and make it a major issue in the presidential campaign. To do
this we need to hear from people and organizations who care about
this
issue. Your responses to the ADL letter would be useful for Nader.
He
needs to show that he is not alone in his views.
>
> This is a historic opportunity you do not want to miss if you
care
about achieving peace in Israel and Palestine. Please forward this
post
to those you think might be supportive and urge them to send me
their
thoughts/responses at kevin@votenader.org.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Kevin
>
> August 13, 2004
>
> Mr. Ralph Nader
> Nader for President 2004
> P.O. Box 18002
> Washington, DC 20036
> VIA FAX 202-265-0092
>
> Dear Mr. nader:
>
> I was disappointed to read your letter of August 5 because it
merely
confirmed my concerns about your original comments, in which you
characterized the Jewish State and American Jews as
being "puppeteers"
who control foreign policy in Congress and the Administration.
Rather
than allay our concerns, your letter only furthers conspiracy
theories
about Jews and borders on bigotry.
>
> In trying to justify the notion that America is a "puppet" of the
Israeli government, you ignore or distort several points:
>
> • Prime Minister Ariel Sharon himself has called for a
Palestinian
state, but only when the Palestinians stop terror and hatred and
accept
Israel's legitimacy. In Israel there is a vibrant debate on ways to
achieve peace with the Palestinians, and yet there is no similar
debate
anywhere in the Arab world. If only there was such diversity of
opinion
in the pro-Palestinian community.
>
> • Mr. Sharon, who was democratically elected by an
overwhelming
majority of Israelis, is moving at great political risk toward
unilateral disengagement from Gaza.
>
> • America has, in fact a lively ongoing conversation about the
conflict which takes many forms and is not controlled by anyone. In
the
final analysis, officials, member of Congress and the American
people
(as reflected in many opinion polls), are in general agreement in
support of Israel as a democracy, as sharing our values, as an ally
and
as a country that wants peace and has the right to defend itself
against
terror. At the same time, America believes in the need for a
Palestinian
state and reform in Palestinian leadership that will enhance
Palestinian
life. There is nothing conspiratorial or controlling about these
balanced and sensible approaches.
>
> • U.S. policy over the years has hardly been as one-sided as
you
suggest. There are many examples of U.S. disagreement with Israeli
policies. Indeed, the U.S. has been the peacebroker because it is
the
only party that has gained the trust of both sides.
> In sum, the realities of Israel, of American-Israeli relations
and
of
U.S. policy are very different from what you describe in your effort
to
justify your false and offensive accuasation. I would urge you to
reconsider your comments.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Abraham H. Foxman
> National Director
--
Paid for by Nader for President 2004
__________________ | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 12:30 am Post subject: Nader draws ire of pro-Israeli Americans |
| http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=7432
Nader draws ire of pro-Israeli Americans
Consumer advocate turned presidential candidate looks for Arab support
By Hussein Ibish
Daily Star staff
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
WASHINGTON: Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader is again
receiving considerable support from Arab-American activists, spurred in
part by his bold criticism of the US role in the Middle East and
Israel's role in the United States.
Surveys suggest that Nader received about 14 percent of the
Arab-American vote in 2000, and stands to do at least as well in the
vote this November.
Perhaps more than any other important national political figure in the
United States of Arab origin, Nader really has begun to sound like a
representative of his community on issues such as Palestine and Iraq.
For decades as a consumer advocate and social justice activist, and even
during his 2000 presidential campaign, Nader downplayed his ethnic
background and offered few observations on foreign policy issues
important to the Arab-American community.
However, since his first major address on the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict at the national convention of the American-Arab
Anti-Discrimination Committee in June 2003, Nader has become sharply
critical of US support for Israeli policies.
On June 29, Nader called both Democratic and Republican leaders "puppets
of Israel," saying, "the Israeli puppeteer travels to Washington and
meets with the puppet in (the) White House. He then goes down
Pennsylvania Avenue and meets with the puppets in Congress."
As a result, Nader has faced a barrage of criticism, mainly from the
Anti-Defamation League, one of the most influential pro-Israel Jewish
organizations in the United States. The ADL's National Director,
Abraham Foxman, said Nader's comments "smack of bigotry."
Nader responded with a lengthy letter, asking Foxman, "have you ever
disagreed with the Israeli government's treatment of the Palestinian
people in any way, shape or manner in the Occupied Territories?"
"As you know there is far more freedom in the media, in town squares and
among citizens, soldiers, elected representatives and academicians in
Israel to debate and discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than there
is in the United States," Nader's letter stated.
In an unsigned editorial on Aug. 14, The Washington Post acknowledged
that "Mr. Nader has a point," but denounced his language as "poisonous,"
compared his comments to those of neo-Nazis, and accused him of playing
on "the age-old anti-Semitic stereotype of powerful Jews dominating
politics and manipulating hapless non-Jewish puppets for their own ends."
His frank criticism of US Middle East policy has certainly ruffled
pro-Israeli feathers, but it has ensured Nader's continued appeal to
many Arab-Americans, especially given widespread disapproval of US
President George W. Bush's foreign policy, and disappointment that
Senator John Kerry seems to offer few alternatives, especially with
regard to Israel.
Nader told The Daily Star that while he has been getting considerable
support, "too many Arab Americans have equipped themselves with
microscopes, desperately trying to find differences between (President)
Bush and Kerry on foreign policy, and there is none - they are both
trying to run to the right of each other."
"We are the only anti-war candidacy and have a lot more knowledge of the
Middle East than the other two," he said.
He urged Arab-Americans to "deny Bush their vote, and send a message to
Kerry by voting for us, because when you are taken for granted, you are
taken."
Some prominent American Muslim leaders who supported Bush in 2000 are
known to be quietly but strongly supportive of Nader, but are keeping a
low profile because they do not wish to be seen as indirectly supporting
Bush again.
Naseem Tufaha, an Arab-American activist in Seattle, is among those
involved in creating an "Arab-Americans for Nader" website, which seeks
to generate support for the campaign in the community through online
activism. He dismisses the idea that supporting Nader is simply an
indirect way of supporting Bush, telling The Daily Star, "the
Arab-American vote is being taken for granted by Bush and Kerry - we
need to create an environment where candidates feel they have something
to lose and something to gain from paying attention to our views."
Many Democrats allege that in 2000 Nader siphoned off voters almost
entirely from former Vice-President Al Gore, ensuring the election of
George W. Bush, and express deep anxiety that Nader's candidacy this
year might similarly doom Kerry's aspirations. Nader has persisted in
running despite intense criticism from Kerry supporters, and a series of
setbacks, including not being re-adopted as the candidate of the Green
Party - which has an extensive grassroots network - and failing to get
on the ballot in a number of states, including California.
Nader said his participation in the upcoming televised candidates'
debates is "all important - it's the only way to reach tens of millions
of people, unless you are a billionaire. We call ourselves the greatest
democracy in the world, and a private corporation created and controlled
by the two parties since 1987 - the Commission on Presidential Debates -
determines who reaches the tens of millions of voters."
In an effort to create a non-partisan forum for the debates this year, a
group of 17 American civic leaders from a range of political
perspectives have founded a new organization called Open Debates. The
group's executive director, George Farah, recently announced that Open
Debates has scheduled five presidential and one vice-presidential
debates in the coming weeks.
Although Nader has welcomed this development, it remains to be seen
whether Kerry or Bush will agree to participate in any of these
citizen-organized debates.
Albert Mokhiber, a Washington attorney supportive of Nader and a former
president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, told The
Daily Star, "there aren't two candidates, there are three, and the other
two are exactly the same on foreign policy. ... Would you rather have
arsenic or cyanide?" he asked rhetorically.
"I'd rather have a vitamin, and Nader is a vitamin." | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 12:42 am Post subject: Kerry Appoints Zionist (AIPAC) Jew as Top Mideast Advisor |
| Forwarded:
The fourth paragraph illustrates why Kerry is more deadly than the
moron Israel firster (Bush). Same ideas but Kerry will get allies to push forth his
policies.
-------------------
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?
pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer&cid=1092626412132&p=1078113566627
Kerry appoints Mel Levine top Mideast adviser
---------------------------------
Tom Tugend, THE JERUSALEM POST Aug. 16, 2004
---------------------------------
When Washington goes its own way and disrespects its allies, it
hurts not only the United States, but Israel as well, insists Mel
Levine.
"Whenever America is diminished in the eyes of the world, it does
Israel no favor," said Levine, who as John Kerry's newly appointed
top adviser on the Middle East is expected to play a major role in
shaping the Democrat's policy on region.
During an interview in his law office, the former congressman from
West Los Angeles was addressing himself to concerns that Kerry's
advocacy of a multilateral US foreign policy might mean greater
pressure on Israel for concessions to the Palestinians and
surrounding Arab states.
Not so, said Levine, "but if we cannot convince Europe, Russia and
other countries to keep nuclear weapons away from Iran, to fight
terrorism, and to exert greater leverage on Arab countries, we will
fail," and thereby weaken Israel.
To gauge Kerry's attitude toward Israel, one need only look at his
votes during 20 years in the US Senate, according to Levine.
"By every rating and criterion, Kerry's votes have shown 100 percent
solid support for Israel," he said. "That's well understood in his
home state of Massachusetts, but not yet throughout the rest of the
country."
Levine's appointment as chair of the Kerry campaign's Middle East
Policy Working Group has been hailed by Jewish spokesmen and
organizations as a reassurance that Israel's interests will have an
eloquent voice in Kerry's inner circle.
As congressman and member of the House foreign affairs committee
from 1983 to 1993, Levine was among Israel's strongest supporters.
His clashes with former Secretary of State James Baker on the Middle
East policies of the first President Bush have become part of
Washington folklore.
Representing the US, Levine has also had considerable experience in
dealing with the Arab side.
At Vice President Al Gore's request, he served as co-president, with
Arab-American James Zogby, of Builders for Peace, a private sector
initiative to make the West Bank economy more competitive that,
despite its good intentions, largely failed.
Following the 1998 Wye Plantation accords, Levine chaired the US-
Israel-Palestinian "anti-incitement" task force. He learned from
this experience that incitement has to be confronted directly and
aggressively, a lesson he is passing on to Kerry.
Until recently, he served on the board of the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee (AIPAC), but has cut his activities in advocacy
groups since becoming chairman of the non-political Community
Relations Committee of the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles.
The Middle East Policy Working Group, said Levine, is not a formal
committee with regular meetings and joint policy formulations. "I
will be seeking informal and informed input from other members, and
then render my advice," Levine said.
He also believes that with Kerry's long service on the Senate
foreign relations committee and his global outlook, "he won't need
much policy guidance. Unlike other presidents, whose previous
experiences were as state governors, Kerry will hit the ground
running."
When Jewish Republicans and Democrats argue the merits of their
presidential candidates, and whether sizeable chunks of the
overwhelmingly Democratic Jewish community will defect this time to
President Bush, Republicans stress the incumbent's pro-Israel
record. Democrats – while not conceding that their man is any less
pro-Israel – emphasize the Bush administration's perceived domestic
policy failures.
Edward Sanders, an elder statesman of the Los Angeles and national
Jewish communities, and who served as President Jimmy Carter's
Middle East and Jewish relations adviser, has no doubt about his
priorities. "I couldn't vote for a candidate who is good for Israel
and bad on everything else," said the veteran Democrat and Kerry
supporter. "What's good for a strong and respected United States is
good for Israel."
Levine acknowledges that the Democrats may not quite retain the 80
percent of the Jewish vote they got in the last presidential
election, when they fielded Al Gore, a longtime friend of the Jewish
community, and Jewish vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman.
But with Bush and Kerry equally pro-Israel, in Levine's view, Jewish
voters will come down overwhelmingly on Kerry's side on a wide range
of domestic issues.
"On the top of the list is church-state separation, and to say that
the present administration has blurred the line is a significant
understatement," said Levine.
Other issues where Levine perceives serious Bush weaknesses include
privacy rights, energy independence, woman's right to choose, health
care, the environment, and preserving social services.
Veteran Democratic Rep. Howard Berman of California has known Levine
for some 27 years and sees the latter's appointment as "an obvious
statement by Kerry that he will be a strong supporter of Israel and
its security interests.
Another longtime colleague, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles)
praised Kerry's ability to "translate his views into public policy."
In a survey by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, leaders of major
Jewish organizations such as AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League, and
the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations
overwhelmingly endorsed the choice of Levine, though some noted that
in the end it would be up to Kerry to act on Levine's
recommendations.
Levine said he would be an "active advocate" in the Kerry campaign,
but declined to speculate on a future role in a Kerry administration. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 12:44 am Post subject: Ralph Nader: A Shameful and Unsavory Editorial |
| http://www.counterpunch.org/nader08232004.html
August 23, 2004
A Letter to the Washington Post
A Shameful and Unsavory Editorial
By RALPH NADER
Dear Editor
Your editorial's (Aug. 14) juxtaposition of my words, taken from my statement which was rooted in an advocacy for an Israeli-Palestinian peace, with a passage from a domestic group, rooted in prejudice, was shameful and unsavory, at the very least. [Wouldn't you have the reaction were someone to pair an excerpt from you pro-Iraq war editorials with a selection from a bigoted anti-Islamic or Anti-Arab organization?] Suffice it to say that your objection to my description of the need to replace the Washington puppet show with the Washington Peace Show serves to reinforce the censorious climate against open and free discussion this conflict in the U.S., as there has been among the Israeli people. When Israelis joke about the United States being "the second state of Israel," it sounds like they are describing a puppeteer-puppet relationship. Or, would The Post prefer using the descriptor "dominant-subordinate?"
The New York Times columnist and Middle Eastern Specialist, Tom Friedman, used stronger words than "puppet" when on February 9th, he wrote: "Mr. Sharon has the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat under house arrest in his office in Ramallah, and he's had George Bush under house arrest in the Oval office. Mr. Sharon has Mr. Arafat surrounded by tanks, and Mr. Bush surrounded by Jewish and Christian pro-Israel lobbyists, by a vice president, Dick Cheney, who's ready to do whatever Mr. Sharon dictates . . . all conspiring to make sure the president does nothing."
When AIPAC works to obtain a recent 407-9 vote for a House of Representatives' resolution which supported the latest Sharon strategy and rejected any mention of an independent Palestinian state, how would you describe such a surrender of the privately held positions of many Representatives, favoring a two-state solution?
Half of the Israeli people and over two-thirds of Americans of the Jewish faith believe the conflict can only be settled by allowing an independent Palestinian state together with a secure Israel.
Four hundred American rabbis, including leaders of some of the largest congregations in the country, protested the Israeli government's house demolition policy. Hundreds of Israeli reserve combat officers and soldiers signed a declaration refusing, in their words, "to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people." (www.seruv.org.il)
That these and many other Israeli and American peace advocates with impressive political, business, academic, military and intelligence experience, receive no hearing in official Washington is further indication of a serious bias inside both political parties. George W. Bush is a messianic militarist with a tin ear toward these courageous collaborators in peace. And what is John Kerry's problem? He told us he has "many friends" in the broad and deep Israeli peace movement. Yet, Mr. Kerry issues a pro-Sharon statement that in its obeisance goes to the right of Bush.
Given that your editorial did not have any problem with these views, why do you object to a description of AIPAC as an awesome lobby on Capitol Hill, labeling it "poisonous stuff?" AIPAC has worked hard over the years to enlist the support of both Christians and Jews. Its organizing skills are the envy of the NRA and other citizen groups. Muslim-Americans are trying to learn from its lobbying skills to produce a more balanced Congressional debate on Middle Eastern policies. How does acknowledging such an achievement "play on age-old stereotypes?" The bias may be in your own mind.
Sincerely,
Ralph Nader
Weekend Edition Features for August 7 / 8, 2004
http://www.counterpunch.org/petras08072004.html
James Petras
The Anatomy of "Terror Experts": Meet the Mandarins of Abu Ghraib
Brian Cloughley
Persecuted by All; Supported by None: Who Would Be A Kurd?
Joshua Frank
The Outsider: a Talk with Ralph Nader
hris Floyd
All About Eve: Open Season on Women in DC and Rome
Andrew Fenton
Fighting for Democracy and Justice in Haiti
Breaking the Principled Voter
Donald Macintyre
The Battle of Najaf
WWW http://www.counterpunch.org | | | | Alpha | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
