James Berger
I’m going to try to explain one last time my objections to the Greens’ alliance with Al-Awda. I don’t feel we got our points across effectively at the meeting on June 24, and I believe it’s important to make these points clearly, even though the vote has been taken and the deal is effectively done. We tried last night to be conciliatory and to stress only positive points. I hope you’ll excuse me if, at this juncture, I’m less conciliatory and more critical. And I apologize in advance for the length of this note, but the details matter and I’ll be as concise as I can.
I. Ideas have consequences. It is not sufficient for an organization simply to endorse lofty ideals such as those stated by Al-Awda regarding universal rights of refugees. One must examine the particular political situation and try to understand how exactly the ideals will be implemented and what will be the results if they are implemented. In the political world, no idea is abstract. Violence, for example, is terrible and immoral, but sometimes violence is necessary to combat oppression. And it is never easy to know when exactly this necessity arises and when non-violent means are still viable. The principle by itself helps us very little. Likewise, right to return is undeniable in the abstract, but in the present situation in Israel-Palestine, its consequences would be terrible. Al-Awda’s position, which is the complete, unconditional, non-negotiable right of all Palestinians to live anywhere in all of Palestine, including Israel, would, if implemented, result in the end of Israel. Period. That’s simply a fact, no matter how Mazin or anyone else may try to spin it. And if you accept the Al-Awda position, you are calling for the end of Israel. Is that the position of the CT Green Party? Ideas have consequences. If you accept an idea, you must accept its consequences.
The other consequence of complete and absolute right of return is that Israel would refuse to accept it. Faced with its destruction by means of the demographic change that complete right of return would bring, Israel would fight. Any attempt to force the implementation of total right to return would mean war. This is certain. Can you seriously doubt it, given the history of the region? Is the CT Green Party in favor of another major war in the middle east? I don’t think this is among our core principles. Now, Al-Awda would strenuously and indignantly deny that they favor war, and might even deny that they necessarily wish for the destruction of Israel. Mazin likes to say that he’s not talking about one state or two states or five states, that he favors no particular political result. But abstract ideas have concrete political consequences. If you adopt an idea, you’re stuck with the consequences–in this case, enormous bloodshed and suffering; quite possibly the economic and political ruin of the entire region.
II. There are other ways of dealing with the refugee problem justly and humanely. Prominent Palestinians have suggested viable approaches, which recognize both the right of Palestinian refugees to return and also the legitimate national aspirations of the Israeli Jews.
Hassan Abdul Rahman, head of Mission of the Palestinian Authority in New York, April 7, 2003, at a conference in New Haven: “A right of return for all Palestinians who left or were evicted in unfeasible and unimplementable. We can have a fair solution short of the full right of return. There are modalities and processes for a fair resolution.”
Yassir Arafat, NY Times op-ed piece, Feb. 3, 2002: “The Palestinians are ready to end the conflict...negotiate freedom for the Palestinians, a complete end of the occupation, security for Israel, and a creative solution to the plight of the refugees while respecting Israel’s demographic concerns.”
Sari Nusseiba, Palestinian Authority envoy to Jerusalem: “The Palestinians must understand that one country is for the Israelis and the second one for the Palestinians... We cannot first ask for the West Bank and Gaza and then take over Israel by demographic means.”
Ziad Abu Zayyad, member of Palestinian Legislative Council and co-editor of Palestine-Israel Journal, panel at Middle East Institute, June 20, 2003: Wants Israel to accept the principle of right to return, but acknowledges that “no one can ask Israel to commit suicide,” and so will accept compensation in lieu of physical return.
And, of course, Ralph Nader, who I think has some credibility in the CT Green Party, has come out against full implementation of right to return (at a rally in Feb. 2003 in New Haven): “The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is eminently solvable... It’s basically, end the occupation, a viable Palestinian state and a place in East Jerusalem, some sort of compensation for seized properties, and the problem is solved.”
In other words, one can recognize the right of Palestinian return, but be willing to negotiate how exactly it will be implemented: a certain number to return physically, compensation provided for others. This can be done–fairly, justly, peacefully–in the context of a viable, sovereign state of Palestine next to a secure and non-intrusive state of Israel. But this is not Al-Awda’s position. Al-Awda’s position is absolute, uncompromising, and non-negotiable. Even within the range of Palestinian positions, Al-Awda is extreme. If we really and truly believe that their position is right, then of course we should endorse and ally ourselves with them. But, given the consequences of implementing their position, and given that other responsible Palestinians have endorsed less extreme positions and are willing to compromise, negotiate, and use imagination in solving the refugee tragedy, is Al-Awda really where we want to be on this issue? Do we want to be absolutist in a political-historical situation in which absolutism on both sides has been causing bloodshed and suffering for over fifty years?
Ideas have consequences, and there are other fair and humane solutions to the problem.
III. Al-Awda is implicitly anti-semitic and has genuine anti-semitic connections. We chose not to bring up this painful and contentious issue at the meeting, but it’s important and needs to be said and shown. I realize that some of you will find reading this very unpleasant, but I ask to do so. The implicit and explicit anti-semitism of Al-Awda must be understood.
A. Its implicit anti-semitism it shares with certain positions on the Left, in the complete denial of any legitimacy to Jewish national aspirations. Israel, in this view, is utterly illegitimate, criminal, racist, and terroristic in its foundations. All other ethnic groups are entitled to nationalist desires; only Jews are excluded. And of all existing states, the single Jewish state is deemed uniquely reprehensible. The singularity of Israel and Zionism as essentially evil in this view makes it, to me, indistinguishable from anti-semitism, even if those who hold this view deny that they are anti-semitic. Let Jews have a state like anyone else; and if not in the middle east, then where? Why such hatred against Israel for its treatment of Palestinians, and such silence regarding Turkey’s treatment of the Kurds? It seems to me to come down to Israel’s being a nation for Jews. You may disagree, but give it some thought. Is there at least a grain of truth here?
B. The willingness of Al-Awda to maintain connections with anti-semitic views and groups came to light during the Fadia Rafeedie incident at the New Haven peace rally in February. Some of you may not be familiar with the details of this story, so I’ll recite it here. The New Haven chapter rejected a proposal that Mazin speak at the rally; the reason for this was that Mazin was so publically associated with the right to return position, a position which the New Haven chapter did not endorse and which we found almost fatally contentious. As we were in the process of looking for another Palestinian speaker who held more moderate views, Mazin and Stan presented us with Fadia Rafeedie, a Yale law student. Disregarding our procedures and our desire for consensus, they forced a vote at a meeting that previously had been assigned only for logistical issues for the rally. Only a few Greens were present; most in attendance were from other organizations. In this way, with a surprise vote and essentially a stacked meeting, Fadia was voted to be the Palestinian speaker. Fadia, they assured us, would be an ideal speaker; she had the complete endorsement of Stan and Mazin. (Mazin’s complete lack of respect for our chapter’s procedures and wishes for consensus is another important issue we should keep in mind as we form an alliance with his organization).
Being rather curious as to who exactly Fadia was, I did a quick Google search and discovered the following.
1. In an op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, she rejected the idea of a Palestinian state alongside Israel because this would serve to justify the “exclusivist Jewish state.”
2. In an op-ed piece in the Yale Herald, she again criticized the “exclusionary character” of Israel and refered to its “terrorist foundations.” “Sharon,” she wrote, “is not the face of Israeli extremism; Sharon is the face of Israel.”
(I should note that Israel is not the only country that wishes to maintain a particular demographic identity. Finland and Norway are others, and indeed every country maintains the right to regulate immigration).
Then things went from merely dubious to disgraceful and disgusting.
3. As a college student, Fadia sent a fan letter to a Holocaust denial website, saying “I just chanced upon your page and was really impressed, especially by the breadth of articles you’ve posted.” It seems the Holocaust denial sites are now posting a lot of anti-Israel material. Fadia asked if she could post a letter from a friend of her uncle, who was in an Israeli jail, and this was done. Fadia later claimed that she did not know that Bradley Smith’s site was dedicated to Holocaust denial, but this claim is not credible. The site clearly identifies itself and its character and purpose are unmistakable.
4. Rafeedie was co-editor of a website called “The Free Arab Voice,” a site which posts astonishingly disgusting material. It features essays on Holocaust denial and “the myth of the gas chambers,” a petition endorsing suicide bombing, and a short David Letterman-esque list entitled “Ten Reasons Why ‘Israeli’ Jews are Kosher Targets.” Fadia responded that these most offensive pieces were posted after she was no longer editor. I suspect this is true, though the material published previously was not much better. In particular, Fadia personally is listed as editor of a lengthy piece by Ibrahim Alloush, “In Response to Defeatist Thought,” which argues that no treaty with “Israel” Israel is always in quotes in this document is legally binding since the state itself is utterly illegitimate. Moreover, Ibrahim Alloush, the author with whom she collaborated in this essay is also the author of “Ten Reasons Why ‘Israeli’ Jews are Kosher Targets.” This is the man who was her colleague and partner when she was editor. What became explicit in the later piece was implicit in the earlier one. With regard to suicide bombings, Rafeedie said that although she was no longer editor when the petition endorsing it appeared, she nevertheless approved of its content, arguing that any form of violent resistence was justified in opposing an illegitimate state that was violent “by its very nature.” And she added, “because I oppose normalization with the Zionist state, I sympathize and agree with the practice of putting the term ‘Israel’ in quotes.”
This is the moderate, responsible, and reputable Palestinian speaker whom Mazin, the founder of Al-Awda, provided us. Is it any wonder that this incident tore our chapter to pieces?
When all this came to light, Mazin did not distance himself from Fadia in any way. Rather, he and Stan attacked the messengers (myself and Pete Ellner) rather than dealing with the reality of the message. They refused to condemn ALL violence in the middle east. They dismissed the Holocaust denial connections as a youthful mistake and failed to address Fadia’s continuing association with Mr. Alloush. As we ally ourselves with Mazin and his organization, we ally ourselves also with Fadia and with her friends and allies. Our association with Fadia Rafeedie, facilitated by Mazin, lost us enormous moral and political credibility–and rightly so. We deserved what we got. And now, rather than dissociate ourselves from these views and people, we have allied our party with Fadia’s champion. This can only be seen as appalling.
C. But what about Mazin? Surely he’s not anti-semitic. He’s such a gentle guy, never says anything harsh to anyone. And the Al-Awda site, as several people pointed out, has no overtly anti-semitic material (other than the general anti-semitism implied in its singular rejection of Jewish nationalism). I don’t know what’s in Mazin’s mind, but I would just point out the following:
1. In private conversation (Mazin, Stan, Pete, my wife Jennifer, and I had lunch together a couple of weeks before the February rally, trying to come to an understanding of each other’s views), Mazin began to talk to us about the connections between Zionists and Nazis. Nazis and Zionists were allies, Mazin told us; in fact, Hitler, in Mein Kampf said terrible things about all Jews EXCEPT for the Zionists. Now, as is the case in so many lies, there is a small piece of truth here. In the mid-1930s, some Zionist groups were in contact with the Nazi government trying to negotiate ways for Jews to emigrate to Palestine. This dialogue stopped when the war began. And by 1941-42, the Nazis no longer were interested in Jewish emigration; their goal had become extermination. And of course Hitler would have preferred Zionists to other Jews: they shared a desire to get Jews out of Germany. But what Mazin seemed to want to imply with his statement was not a temporary convergence of interests (i.e. removing Jews from Germany) but rather some deep, intrinsic connection or resemblance between Zionists and Nazis. This suggestion that Zionists were (and are?) secret cousins to the Nazis is a lie, is ridiculous, is bad history–and reveals a contempt and hatred for Jews. It is anti-semitic, without question.
2. Mazin has been an active participant in a student listserve at Yale dealing with anti-war issues. He is the only faculty member, by the way, who participates in this student listserve. All other Yale faculty members feel the students should have a place to discuss issues on their own. Mazin made two particular postings of a highly questionable nature. First, he provided a long list of references meant to substantiate a claim that Jews control the American media. This charge of Jewish media manipulation is, of course, an anti-semitic lie of long standing. Are there Jews in the media? Of course. Do they control and manipulate it. Hardly. (American global capital and its military adjuncts are certainly not controlled by “the Jews”). Second, and more serious, Mazin posted–without their knowledge or permission--a list of about sixty Yale students, with their e-mail addresses, who he claimed were part of a “pro-war cabal.” Almost all the names on the list were recognizably Jewish, and Mazin commented, “Note that there is a significant overlap of this list with the Yale Friends of Israel listserve.” This posting provoked enormous outrage, especially from many students whose names were on the list but who in fact opposed the war in Iraq. As one student wrote, Mazin “projected an ideology onto a group of students,” specifically onto Jewish students. The anti-semitic nature of Mazin’s posting was not lost on the students. They called it for what it was.
IV. Mazin and Al-Awda have been divisive and disruptive in their contacts with the New Haven chapter. Particularly in the Fadia Rafeedie incident, they have not respected consensus or procedures. John Halle, in an e-mail of March 4, 2003, criticized Mazin and Stan for “choosing a speaker who intended to rub our noses in this issue” and of doing so “in the most antagonistic and divisive way imaginable.” To Mazin, John added, “you have given no basis for believing that you have any interest in the Green Party outside of how it can serve as a vehicle for advancing the single issue which you regard as fundamental.” John, by the way, is in fact someone who agrees with Stan and Mazin’s views on the middle east; and yet he still felt compelled to speak out about their outrageous behavior toward our chapter.
I think that about covers it. I know this will be upsetting to some of you, for I realize that many of you like Mazin very much. But everything I’ve said here is true. An association with Mazin’s organization is a very dubious venture. It is good to have high principles, and it is good to refuse to compromise on principles of importance. But we must grasp very clearly what the consequences of our principles might be; and into whose company they may lead us.
Sincerely,
Jim Berger
PS: I just read Mazin’s latest communique, “The Myth and Reality in Palestine.” One astonishing statement caught my attention: “...the Zionists want a one-state that is ethnically cleansed from its Arab indigenous people while the Palestinians want a pluralist and multi-cultural state where religion is separated from state affairs.”
This statement:
*assumes that all “Zionists” think alike. Not true. Polls consistently show that a large majority of Israelis support a genuine, viable, sovereign Palestinian state. However they also want to live in safety–thus the temptation of figures like Sharon.
*assumes that all Palestinians think alike. Again, not true. Hamas and Hezbollah have strong religious motivations and apparently enjoy fairly broad support.
*assumes that Israel is a theocracy. Once more, not true. The religious factions have too much influence, but the Israeli constitution and government are secular, and the Zionist movement in its origins was secular and socialist.
What is one to make of Mazin’s habit of gross oversimplification based on ethnic and religious categories? Is this sort of racist essentialism a Green Party core value?
=============
Response from Penny
Dear Jim,
I am flattered to be cc'ed into this discussion. Unfortunately, being embroiled in a difficult battle to pass an anti-PATRIOT Act resolution in my home town, I really don't have time to participate on any meaningful level. But in appreciation of your gesture I will respond at least to your initial email.
First, I met Mazin for the first time at the SCC meeting last Tues., so I have not had a chance to be swayed by his (admittedly pleasant) personality. I do not know whether he is truly anti-Semitic, or merely anti-Zionist (two very different things). Neither matters to me. I work with numerous sexists within the Green Party. If they, and all the racists and other -ists were pushed out of the party, there would be a paucity of Greens left in the US. We can and must refuse to promote discriminatory or hate-based policy, but we cannot possibly dissociate ourselves from everyone who has ever had a discriminatory or hateful thought.
One thing I know about Mazin: he has never sent me an email that included a lengthy attempt at character assassination of a fellow Green. I appreciate that, Mazin. I hope the practice will end soon.
I disagree with many of your contentions about the impact of allowing the Right of Return (a UN-affirmed right, for heaven's sake) to be included in peace negotiations. Your position excludes any possibility of a one-state solution, which severely limits negotiations.
The only way to characterize the RoR as a "nonstarter" in negotiations is to refuse oneself to negotiate. If it were the right of mass slaughter, I would consider it a nonstarter. The RoR is not a nonstarter for anyone who is able to maintain a marginal degree of openmindedness.
I also disagree with the assertion that any ethnic or religious group is entitled to its own country, in which it can freely discriminate against other ethnic groups. I do not support a purely Jewish nation any more than I support a purely Christian nation on US territory. The ideal of peaceful coexistence of people of various ethnicities and religious backgrounds is what we are striving for, as Greens.
Finally, if the New Haven chapter is truly being split asunder by this issue, that is unfortunate but also unnecessary, and my advice would be to let it go. To suppress Mazin's (or anyone's) right to express his views in a nonviolent, impersonal way, is not okay. To listen to views with which one strongly disagrees is a laudable practice, and I would urge whichever New Haveners are making life miserable for your chapter to open their ears and practice some tolerance. This is not a difficult call: the aptness of the RoR as a negotiating point in Israel/Palestine is insisted upon by the UN, by international law, by the national GP, and by a large majority of those present at the recent SCC meeting.
Regrettably, I must ask that I be removed from this discussion list. The US is in the process of becoming a police state, and if we don't make pre-emptive challenges now, we will soon voice our political opinions only to a concrete wall (perhaps our own prison cell). I know some are less concerned than I about this issue, but I, like Mazin, feel passionately about my cause.
Respectfully,
Penny Teal
plteal@yahoo.com |