Monthly Archive for June, 2007

Michael Lerner’s post on the current situation in Gaza cannot be found on line in its original from at this point: As a result of criticism (such as the one below), he has retracted his statements, and the essay, to be found on [LINK] ends with the retraction/apology.

I appreciate the fact that Lerner is able to apologize – not an easy thing, I’m sure. I’m also VERY troubled by what he had written to begin with. It’s so blatantly racist, that it’s hard to imagine why rabbi Lerner needed this pointed out to him.

Racheli Gai, New Profile, 29 June 2007

Yesterday’s “Current Thinking” commentary

I was shocked and disappointed to see this sentence in a posting yesterday by Tikkun editor Michael Lerner :

even when Jews were forced to live under real starvation conditions and wild-overcrowding in the ghettoes of Nazi Germany and then the concentration camps, they did not take up systematic violence against each other. There is something in the culture of the Palestinians, or of the Arab world, or of the Muslim world (you tell me which, I’m not sure) that is too tolerant of violence, and too willing to excuse it, whether it be in the disgusting violence of Sunnis vs. Shias that took place in the Iraq/Iran war and in the current civil war in Iraq, in Lebanon, and now the struggle in Palestine.

Perhaps the greatest irony is that this statement is embedded in an article that purports to offer a hard-headed analysis of the current Gaza crisis … including the role of Israeli authorities over the years in financing Hamas, as well as the “slow starvation of the Palestinian population.” (Which, presumably, does not quite rise to the level of the “real” starvation inflicted on the Jews.)

Continue reading ‘Rachael Kamel’s response to Michael Lerner’s June 16 “Current Thinking”’

Or, the sweet smell of secession
by Bill Kauffman
Published in the July/August 2007 issue of Orion magazine

In the wake of George W. Bush�s re-election in 2004, frustrated liberals talked secession back to within hailing distance of the margins of national debate�a place it had not occupied since 1861. With their praise of self-rule and the devolution of power, they sounded not unlike many conservatives had in the days before Bush & Cheney & Limbaugh wedded the American Right to the American Empire. While certain proponents of the renascent secessionism were motivated by spite or pixilated by whimsy or driven by the simple-minded belief that the United States can be divided into blue and red�as though our lovely land can be painted in only two hues!�others argued with cogency and passion for a disunionist position that bordered on the, well, seditious. Emphasizing both culture (“Now that slavery is taken care of, I�m for letting the South form its own nation,� said Democratic operative Bob Beckel) and economics (Democratic pundit Lawrence O�Donnell noted that �ninety percent of the red states are welfare clients of the federal government”), writing in forums of neoliberalism (Slate) and paleoliberalism (The Nation), liberals helped to disinter a body of thought that had been buried at Appomattox. And�surprise!�three years later, the corpse has legs.

Secession is the next radical idea poised to enter mainstream discourse�or at least the realm of the conceivable. You can�t bloat a modest republic into a crapulent empire without sparking one hell of a centrifugal reaction. And the prospect of breaking away from a union once consecrated to liberty and justice but now degenerating into imperial putrefaction will only grow in appeal as we go marching with our Patriot Acts and National Security Strategies through Iraq, Iran, and all the frightful signposts on our road to nowhere.

[ Read the essay ]

Sally Quinn writes that the GOP should oust Cheney whilst he’s having his pacemaker recharged and should replace him with Fred Thompson.

Apparently the switch would restore the popularity of the Republican party in time for the ’08 presidential elections.

It’s just entertainment to these folks.

Nobel Women’s Initiative: In support of the Iraqi people, in opposition to the Iraq oil law

While the Bush administration has repeatedly claimed that the war in Iraq is not about oil, U.S. oil corporations are poised to take control over the 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves – 10 percent of the world total. The Bush administration�s proposed new oil law for Iraq, set to go before Iraq�s Parliament this month, would transform Iraq�s oil industry from a nationalized model to a commercial model that is much more open to U.S. corporate control. Its provisions allow much (if not most) of Iraq�s oil revenues to flow out of Iraq and into the pockets of international oil companies. At NWI’s First International Conference Antonia Juhasz from the US and Yanar Mohammed from Iraq educated participants on the perils of this proposed law and the Nobel Peace Prize laureates signed the following statement. For more information and action see below.

In Opposition to the Iraq Oil Law

(19 June 2007) In support of the people of Iraq, we the undersigned Nobel Peace Prize Laureates, state our opposition to the Iraq Oil Law. We also oppose the decision of the United States government to require that the Iraq government pass the Oil Law as a condition of continued reconstruction aid in legislation passed on May 24, 2007.

A law with the potential to so radically transform the basic economic security of the people of Iraq should not be forced on Iraq while it is under occupation and in such a weak negotiating position vis-�-vis both the U.S. government and foreign oil corporations.

The Iraq Oil Law could benefit foreign oil companies at the expense of the Iraqi people, deny the Iraqi people economic security, create greater instability, and move the country further away from peace.

The U.S. government should leave the matter of how Iraq will address the future of its oil system to the Iraqi people to be dealt with at a time when they are free from occupation and more able to engage in truly democratic decision-making.

It is immoral and illegal to use war and invasion as mechanisms for robbing a people of their vital natural resources.

Signed by:
Betty Williams
Mairead Corrigan Maguire
Prof. Jody Williams
Dr. Shirin Ebadi
Prof. Wangari Maathai

Take Action
If you are in the US, send a letter to your Congressional representatives via
Oil Change International’s Action Tool

If you are in the UK, contact your MP through Hands off Iraqi Oil

For further information:

Oil Change International Iraq Oil Law page

Hands off Iraqi Oil

Stop the Iraqi Oil Law

The Bush Agenda

The Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq

Who’s Oil Is It, Anyway? by Antonia Juhasz, printed in the New York Times

Nobel Laureates Condemn Iraqi Oil Law, US United Press International, 20 June 2007.

In_Opposition_to_the_Iraq_Oil_Law.pdf

By Randy Talbot, United for Peace of Pierce County, 24 June 2007

On Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed an embarrassing AIPAC-designed resolution calling on the U.N. Security Council to take up genocide charges against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for calling for Israel to be “wiped off the map.” — The resolution is an absurd one and the House should be ashamed of its 411-2 vote, since in fact the Iranian president never said any such thing. — Kucinich raised the question of the mistranslation of Ahmadinejad’s remarks and tried to correct the record by having alternative translations read into the record, but the House preferred to remain in its AIPAC-induced state of error. — “Kucinich attempted to insert into the Congressional Record two independent translations of the speech from the New York Times and Middle East Media Research Institute, which contain significant differences in the translations of the speech compared to the resolution before the House. However, Members objected formally and the attempt was blocked.”[1] — Indeed, the record shows that one third of the debate on the floor of the House consisted of Dennis Kucinich’s unsuccessful attempt to have more accurate translations of Ahmadinejad’s remarks � from the New York Times no less! � inserted into the record. — Since these remarks were supposedly the reason for the resolution, nothing could have been more germane, but unanimous consent was denied, on the grounds that the speech contained the very ideas that Kucinich questioned whether it contained � a very nice petitio principii, or begging of the question. — The only other representative voting against the resolution was Ron Paul (R-TX 14th), who called it “an exercise in propaganda that serves one purpose: to move us closer to initiating a war against Iran.”[2] …

[ Read the report/statement ] [ h/t Stop Iran War ]