"attacks on innocent civilians leading to 1000s of disabilities, the killing of nearly a 1000 children in the last 4 years, torture and other ill-treatment of prisoners including blindfoliding..."That could well describe the United States' actions in Iraq. Except that the number of civilian disabilities is well over 1000. I can't say exactly how many because the number is not counted, as an official administration policy (civilian deaths in Iraq are also officially not counted). And the number of children killed is well over 1000 in less than 1 year instead of 4 years. And the ill-treatment of prisoners is much worse than just blindfolding, as we saw at Abu Ghraib.
Ron also wrote:
"War crimes, by definition (see Geneva conventions)are not excusable by any conditions so that security concerns do not constitute an acceptable excuse under international humanitarian law."It is the official policy of the United States that the Geneva Convention does not apply to prisoners at Guantanamo (which is why they're imprisoned there). Alberto Gonzalez, the individual who developed that policy position, was recently nominated for Attorney General to succeed John Ashcroft. I concur with Ron's opinion that war crimes are not excusable by any security concerns, but we should acknowledge that it is our own country's official position to do exactly that.
Finally, Ron writes:
"Is there anyone in PDS who thinks that we should be invested in Isreal Bonds or funds that are connected directly to Isreali war crimes as documented by Amnesty International ?"Here's the most recent report by Amnesty International about US war crimes in Iraq. It's dated Nov. 16, and there are plenty of other reports besides that one. I agree with Ron that Amnesty International should be the arbiter of which countries have committed war crimes. Their annual report on the USA includes the following topics which overlap very highly with the topics on Ron's list:
My point is, if we want to be consistent about divestment, we should seek the divestiture from any companies that do business with the United States government or at least with the United States military. Either one is tantamount to replacing the entire city investment portfolio with a "socially-responsible" portfolio. I would support that, as I think everyone would, but I would not support divesting from Israel.
I would not support divesting from Israel because singling out Israel as the only subject of divestiture implies that Israel is worse than the other countries listed by Amnesty International. It specifically implies that Israel's policy behavior is worse than that of the United States, and I would specifically disagree with that during the Bush administration. Effective socially-responsible divestiture would divest first from the US military, not from Israel.
Furthermore, PDS's mission and focus has always been to work within the Democratic Party -- and by extension, within the Massachusetts legislature and the US Congress-- to change the way that they misbehave. We could act in line with that mission and focus by seeking divestiture from the US military first, and from all militaries (including Israel's) second.
I'm a Jew and a childhood resident of Israel so you can justifiably call me biased. I am always wary of attacks on Israel because I question why Israel is singled out and I question the bias of the attack. I think that any singling out of Israel by a socially-responsible organization must include a complete listing of Palestinian atrocities in parallel with listing Israeli actions.
In summary, I would support divestiture from all socially irresponsible governments and organizations but I would strongly oppose singling out Israel.
If PDS is to have a fair debate on the Israeli-Palestinian situation in order to make a balanced judgment, I would also suggest that the debate include the pre-1967 history of the neighboring Arab countries' relations with the Palestinian cause, because that accounting would make it obvious that the Palestinians have been the poltiical pawn of the neighboring Arab governments. The stated purpose of the Palestinian movement -- a return to the pre-1967 borders -- would literally mean a return to occupation of Palestine by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. The only time that Palestine existed as an independent state was for a couple of weeks in 1948, when they were invaded and occupied by the national armies of the three Arab countries above, plus the national armies of Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Iraq. While as an American progressive I'm sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, I believe we should not be brainwashed by the oil-funded propaganda of the Saudi monarchy, the terrorism-backed propaganda of al Qaeda, nor the pro-militaristic propaganda of the United States. If PDS would like to sponsor a full debate on the history and possible solutions to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, I would volunteer to defend the Israeli side.
-- Jesse Gordon
Ron Francis' original posting:
Dear PDS folks,
This question of divestment is this: should we or
should we not be invested in funds that are connected
to the following:
attacks on innocent civilians leading to 1000s of
disabilities, the killing of nearly a 1000 children in
the last 4 years, torture and other ill-treatment of
prisoners including blindfoliding and exposure to
weather, political assasinations, illegal settlements
in West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, collective
punishment including home demolitions, blocking of
ambulances, blocking of humanitarian aid such that
nearly half of children suffer from chronic
malnutrition (John Hopkins), illegal seizure of land
through the apartheid wall, blatant and overt racial
discrimination against Palestinians in Isreal who want
to marry other Palestinians in the West Bank (absurd),
legalized racist policies regarding citizenship for
non-Jewish people (Jewish emigrants are granted
citizenship while non-Jewish people are not), cutting
off of water supplies, cutting off of electricity, use
of excessive force on civilians, illegal checkpoints,
ongoing continuance of a military occupation (illegal
under Geneva convention), uprooting of hundreds of
thousands of olive trees needed by farmers for their
livelihood, failure to provide medical resources for
an occupied population (Geneva convention violation),
attacks on UN schools, attacks on mosques, illegal
searches, detentions without charge for extended
periods, bombing of residential neighborhoods, forced
closings of schools, illegal curfews, taking over of
houses for military purposes (Geneva convention
violation)...
to give a partial listing of violations that occur on
a DAILY basis. (references for these violations are
ubiquitous)
Somerville has no money invested in Palestinians who
carry out illegal attacks, so why should we invest
nearly 1.2 million dollars monies that can be
specifically tied to Israel's horrific war crimes.
Not only is Somerville taking sides in this conflict,
for years, (bad enough), but we are siding by
supporting funds directly connected to human rights
violations of an extreme nature.
War crimes, by definition (see Geneva conventions)are
not excusable by any conditions so that security
concerns do not constitute an acceptable excuse under
international humanitarian law. In other words, there
are no conditions, period, under which it is legal to
take over a home and use it as a military base.
Note that 27 Israeli pilots refused to fly missions
earlier this year citing that the actions were immoral
and Shulamit Aloni, a former Israeli minister stated
"we've become barbarians", in refering to Israeli
policy, last year. Hundreds of refuseniks willnot
serve in the Israeli military.
It is completely unacceptable and immoral to have
funds connected to these actions, period. Desmond
Tutu, and the Presbyterian Church have endorsed
divestment on moral grounds.
7 speakers who were Jewish have spoken publicly in
favor of divestment and two were Jewish community
leaders. Many Arabs don't speak up for fear of
retaliation by Patriot Act
Somerville has invested in Isreal bonds and these
criminal companies for years and it needs to stop. We
should not give money to companies or institutions
supplying war criminals.
Whether or not we agree with the text of the current
Aldermen's resolution, that was co-sponsored by 8 of
10 voting Aldermen, we should immediately issue a call
to disconnect Somerville from these funds.
If the money were connected to Islamic Jihad, would we
be hesitating ?... I don't think so. We shouldn't
hesitate to oppose vigorously these ill-advised and
unconscionable investments.
Is there anyone in PDS who thinks that we should be
invested in Isreal Bonds or funds that are connected
directly to Isreali war crimes as documented by
Amnesty International ?
Let's demand that Somerville immediately disconnect
itself from these atrocities.
Dr. Ronald Francis
From: Ron Francis
Date: Wed Nov 24, 2004 7:04 pm
Subject: Let's support human rights and divestment
Spring Hill