News :: Civil & Human Rights
Wrong ANSWER, again
Wrong, ANSWER--again
The folks over at International ANSWER appear to have gone off their medication again. You remember them-- the "anti-war" group that cheers Hamas and Hezbollah rocket attacks against Israel; the self-proclaimed commissars of rallies against the US war in Iraq that have managed to shrivel the public turnout at their events down to a few thousand at a time. Basically now irrelevant except to the hard core cadres who show up because of ANSWER's other agendas--Israel-bashing, China-excusing, Darfur-denying and so on. They have now gone as far as to admit that they have accepted dhimmi status with regard to their radical Moslem constituency. Having been instructed by their Moslem groups that they would be offended by public nudity, ANSWER begged the "nudes for peace" contingent not to show up at their recent rally. Of course, ANSWER doesn't view as offensive the "Palestine is our land and the Jews are our dogs" chants or the sonorous voice of Hatem Bazian chanting "intifada, intifada" like some kind of crazed jihadist mantra (wait, that actually IS a crazed jihadist mantra!), or the signs at its rallies displaying naked anti-Semitism. They ignore the fact that the Islamists whose boots they lick are homophobes who excuse "honor killings" and the genocide in Darfur.
We also were able to find out that at least one group allied with ANSWER places its racial/ethnic agenda even ahead of its core political position--opposition to the war in Iraq. Witness these e-mails received by Direct Action to Stop The War about last week's anti-war actions in San Francisco which were aimed not only at US Government offices but also those businesses who were deemed complicit in the war effort:
"Hey all,I just got a call from S---- S---, the owner of the Sprint store at --------, which is on our direct action menu. He told me that that store is an authorized Sprint dealership that's owned by him - it is*not* owned by Sprint. He said that he strongly opposes the war and strongly supports what we're doing, and hopes that we won't target his business.Please make whatever decision you see fit based on this information.(Personally, I think we should let the poor guy off the hook.)Thanks,Adrian"
"I just got an e-mail forwarded to me from someone re: the sprint storeowned by S---- S---- he is a Palestinian who's grandfather passed away 3 days ago, so PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE drop this off your target list. I understand the need to target war profiteers, but i wish more research had been done on the targets. some people are just trying to feed their families, and have almost no choice but to partner with companies such as Sprint. thank you, M----- S---- (S----- is my cousin)"
How did we get these e-mails? Maybe somebody on the inside took offense at not holding Palestinians to the same moral standards? Maybe this person felt that just because you're Palestinian or other "oppressed" Moslem that you can be held accountable for the choices you make, same as everyone else? Naaahhhhhh..... Palestinians are excused for celebrating the cold-blooded murder of yeshiva students so why should a little war profiteering be an issue between friends?
What's next-- is ANSWER going to insist that all women wear burkas to its next rally?
Comments
Re: Wrong ANSWER, again
27 Mar 2008
Re: Wrong ANSWER, again
27 Mar 2008
by ZEPHANIA KING Monday, Sep. 04, 2006 at 9:45 AM
The American Left is notoriously anti-Israel. It seems that if one is pro-choice, or pro-gay, or even pro-civil liberties, one is almost automatically against the evil theocratic military machine dug in unfairly in amongst its peace loving neighbors.
Nevertheless, as I set out to continue my efforts to end the Iraq War by working as a summer intern at a major anti-war coalition based in New York City, a coalition famous for organizing some of the largest demonstrations against the war, I expected the activists who worked there to be different.
I expected individuals dedicated to ending all war and the atrocities that are chained to any and every armed conflict to be able rise above the quid pro quo political banter that has dominated the Arab-Israeli conflict from its conception and simply work for peace. I was wrong.
As an intern at this coalition I have the privilege of attending the weekly national staff meetings. These communions aren't normally animated by lively or heated debate and usually run their course calmly and smoothly.
Yet, as I sat on a donated chair, around a donated table, in a donated midtown office, among a staff whose livelihood rests on the charitable consciences of others, I heard a remark that forced me to rock the boat.
The National Coordinator was informing those present about the prospects of acquiring posters that said in Hebrew, English, and Arabic, "An eye for an Eye leaves the whole world blind."
I thought quoting Gandhi is always appropriate when advocating for peace.
However, my contemplation was interrupted by the head organizer's objection to the poster. He complained the slogan selected to print was misrepresentative of Israel's disproportionate response to Hizbullah's attacks on northern Israel. The humming of the air conditioner became the dominant noise in the room until I blurted out, "What? Do you expect Israel to use Katyushas?"
After the national coordinator explained to the head organizer that my point was that war is not a game that is played fairly, he decided to turn up the gas; the head organizer then informed me Israel was carrying out a program of ethnic cleansing.
Immediately, the rapes of the ethnic Albanians by the Serbs in Kosovo crashed into my mind. If I was any more shocked I couldn't have forced the word "explain" out of my mouth.
According to the head organizer, Israel was ethnically cleansing Lebanon of the Lebanese because it had warned inhabitants of targeted areas to evacuate for their own safety. Furthermore the Israel Air Force had forcibly prevented those who left from stampeding to get back to a war zone by destroying the roads.
Maybe the aforementioned acts fit the technical definition of ethnic cleansing, maybe they don't. Nevertheless, this is not the point. The point is that the head organizer, a paid full-time member of the national staff of the coalition, hypocritically ignored the fact that 125,000 Israelis had been driven to the southern city of Eilat to avoid Hizbullah's bombardment; ethnic cleansing by his own definition. Moreover, the head organizer severed the discussion before I could conclude my point. An organization dedicated to peace cannot pick sides and play politics when both parties are being violent and it certainly cannot silence the voice of a different opinion.
The aforementioned coalition, and the entire American peace movement need to decide whether it is an open-minded body, dedicated to the cessation of war and the beginning of friendship, or a platform for one-sided Israel bashing.
If they decide on the former they must condemn the violence being carried out on both sides and acknowledge the fact that peace can only be made by sovereign elected governments, not rogue militias whose fundamental goals include the complete destruction of their neighbors. And most importantly, the peace movement must avoid fueling the fires of hate with biased accusatory rhetoric, for these fires already engulf the region, covering the path towards reconciliation.