Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Ehud Olmert's "convergence plan"
Ehud Olmert's "convergence plan," detailed in an interview with Karby Leggett of The Wall Street Journal (April 12, 2006), has major ramifications for Israel-Palestine, regional peace and the international community. Olmert talks of "a large pullout from parts of the occupied West Bank within the next 18 months." He plans "to evacuate as many as 70,000 settlers…which could cost more than $10 billion - while annexing large chunks of disputed Palestinian territory. The goal ... is to establish permanent, internationally recognized borders that will ensure Israel retains its Jewish majority for decades to come. Though he expects to carry out the plan without Palestinian input, he believes it ... could lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state and a negotiated peace settlement someday."
Of the 250,000 Israeli citizens living in over a hundred West Bank settlements, (not counting 200,000 settlers in occupied East Jerusalem), only one-third will face evacuation, says Leggett. "Many may be offered relocation to the large settlement blocs Israel plans to retain. ... Perhaps the most sensitive issue will be the question of Jerusalem. Palestinians claim the city as their future capital and say that must be reflected in any resolution to the Mideast's core conflict. The U.S. has generally supported the Palestinian position during previous peace negotiations."
Olmert ruled out sharing political control of Jerusalem and its holy sites: "Dividing Jerusalem will not bring peace, only more fighting," he said.
A glance at Map 1 shows Jerusalem sprawled midway between the northern and southern parts of the West Bank. To its west is Israel. To its east, the Judaean Desert -descends to the Jordanian border, dominated by the Maale Adumim settlement bloc. Contact between the northern and southern cantons - like contact with Gaza - will depend on Israel's good graces. It is unlikely, to say the least, that the result will be the "viable Palestinian state" touted repeatedly by U.S. President George W. Bush since June 2002, when he introduced his "Road Map to Peace" and the Bush Vision.
The Economist, in an April 12, 2006 editorial on Jerusalem, disagrees with Olmert: "No peace is possible unless the city remains accessible, from both its east and west. At the very least, during this period of relative calm, Israel must keep its barrier as open as possible. Sealing in and cutting off the Palestinians of Jerusalem will only make another descent into violence more likely."
Leggett, in The Wall Street Journal article, comments on the expected Palestinian response to Olmert's plan: "Anger also could rise in the West Bank and Gaza, where many Palestinians see the pullout as an attempt by Israel to avoid negotiations and impose its will. Already, senior leaders of the militant Islamist organization Hamas … have called Mr. Olmert's plan a 'declaration of war.'"
Olmert mentions a $10 billion price tag to his "convergence" plan, and implies that Washington will fund it. If the U.S. complies, writes Leggett, it "will likely be seen throughout the Middle East as assisting Israel's bid to take permanent control of large settlement blocs and Jerusalem. The fear is that this would add to regional anger toward the U.S., complicating efforts to stabilize Iraq and promote democracy in other countries."
Olmert's convergence plan is intended to establish final borders, already visible in the form of the Wall. In their report "Under the Guise of Security," [1] Israeli human-rights organizations, BIMKOM and B'Tselem, detail how the Wall has been erected to create prime real estate and hasten expansion of the settlements (which are illegal under international law). Olmert's agenda highlights what peace activists have long been saying: the Wall is a long-term political border, rather than the "temporary security installation" claimed by Israeli military planners, when testifying at Supreme Court hearings.
As to Jerusalem, B'Tselem states: "The decision to run the barrier along the municipal border, and the weak arguments given to explain that decision, lead to the conclusion that the primary consideration was political: the unwillingness of the government to pay the political price for choosing a route that will contradict the myth that 'unified Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel.'" [2]
Olmert ruled out sharing political control of Jerusalem and its holy sites: "Dividing Jerusalem will not bring peace, only more fighting," he said.
A glance at Map 1 shows Jerusalem sprawled midway between the northern and southern parts of the West Bank. To its west is Israel. To its east, the Judaean Desert -descends to the Jordanian border, dominated by the Maale Adumim settlement bloc. Contact between the northern and southern cantons - like contact with Gaza - will depend on Israel's good graces. It is unlikely, to say the least, that the result will be the "viable Palestinian state" touted repeatedly by U.S. President George W. Bush since June 2002, when he introduced his "Road Map to Peace" and the Bush Vision.
The Economist, in an April 12, 2006 editorial on Jerusalem, disagrees with Olmert: "No peace is possible unless the city remains accessible, from both its east and west. At the very least, during this period of relative calm, Israel must keep its barrier as open as possible. Sealing in and cutting off the Palestinians of Jerusalem will only make another descent into violence more likely."
Leggett, in The Wall Street Journal article, comments on the expected Palestinian response to Olmert's plan: "Anger also could rise in the West Bank and Gaza, where many Palestinians see the pullout as an attempt by Israel to avoid negotiations and impose its will. Already, senior leaders of the militant Islamist organization Hamas … have called Mr. Olmert's plan a 'declaration of war.'"
Olmert mentions a $10 billion price tag to his "convergence" plan, and implies that Washington will fund it. If the U.S. complies, writes Leggett, it "will likely be seen throughout the Middle East as assisting Israel's bid to take permanent control of large settlement blocs and Jerusalem. The fear is that this would add to regional anger toward the U.S., complicating efforts to stabilize Iraq and promote democracy in other countries."
Olmert's convergence plan is intended to establish final borders, already visible in the form of the Wall. In their report "Under the Guise of Security," [1] Israeli human-rights organizations, BIMKOM and B'Tselem, detail how the Wall has been erected to create prime real estate and hasten expansion of the settlements (which are illegal under international law). Olmert's agenda highlights what peace activists have long been saying: the Wall is a long-term political border, rather than the "temporary security installation" claimed by Israeli military planners, when testifying at Supreme Court hearings.
As to Jerusalem, B'Tselem states: "The decision to run the barrier along the municipal border, and the weak arguments given to explain that decision, lead to the conclusion that the primary consideration was political: the unwillingness of the government to pay the political price for choosing a route that will contradict the myth that 'unified Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel.'" [2]
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
" Israel retains its Jewish majority for decades to come.."
Enough said.
Enough said.
Why did Arafat reject Barak's 'generous' offer at Camp David? (This is the typical pro-israel apologist's bunk argument/assertion)
Now we will refute it:
At the failed Camp David summit, Arafat was clearly ambushed by Clinton and Barak, when both presented him a deal that was much more favorable to Israel than to Palestine. Because of domestic U.S. political reasons, a sitting U.S. president could never propose a deal that is unfavorable to Israel. What was fundamentally wrong at Camp David that Arafat was negotiating in miles while Barak was negotiating in inches. It's worth taking a note that it's the Palestinian people who owned and operated 93% of Palestine's land as of 1948, click here for a breakdown of Palestinian vs. Zionist land ownership as of 1946. In a nutshell, Arafat was presented with "a take it or leave it deal" either Palestinians had to give up their claims to most of East Jerusalem and forfeit their Right of Return, and in return Palestinians would "gain" a non-contiguous state on parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, or the whole Clinton-Barak offer had to be rejected outright; which he did.
One CENTRAL FACT, which is usually suppressed in the Western media, is that the Israeli government has previously offered most of the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip to King Hussein (with the exception of occupied East Jerusalem). However, the king of Jordan rejected the "generous" offer outright. In an interview with H.M. King Hussein, he stated:
"... I was offered the return of something like 90 plus percent of the territories, 98 percent even, excluding [occupied East] Jerusalem, but I couldn't accept. As far as I am concerned, it was either every single inch that I was responsible for or nothing." (Iron Wall, p. 264)
So to claim that:
"Barak went further than any other Israeli leaders for peace"
is a BIG LIE because other Israeli leaders were willing to handover more occupied lands and sovereignty to King Hussein in return for the Israeli version of "peace".
All Israelis, Zionists, and Americans must understand that no Arab leader could entertain the thought of such an offer, not even King Hussein himself when he was alive. From our point of view, anything is negotiable except for the Right of Return and East Jerusalem. What was offered at the failed Camp David summit is unacceptable to many Palestinians for the following reasons:
The implementation of the Palestinian Right of Return, based on UN GA resolution 194, is THE KEY for ending the conflict. So any peace process that does not address the R.O.R. is nothing but a temporary cease fire, and the conflict eventually would flare up again. It should be emphasized that the majority of the Palestinian people are refugees, and for any agreement to hold, it must neutralize this vital political block.
To even think that King Hussein and his grandfather King Abdullah refused to relinquish sovereignty over Jerusalem to the Israelis, and to expect the Palestinian people to do the exact opposite, is LUDICROUS. Keep in mind that it's a well known fact that the Hashemites has been a central factor in protecting Israel's interests even before its inception in 1948, This fact is rarely disputed among historians, click here to read more about the Hashemites role during the 1948 war.
Jerusalem is extremely important from an Islamic point of view because it was the first Qibla before Mecca, and the third holiest site for Muslims after Mecca and Medina. Even if you disagree with this assessment, from a political point of view Jerusalem is the most unifying factor amongst Arabs and Muslims.
Most Arabs cannot comprehend the thought that Arabs and Muslims fought so bravely to cleanse Jerusalem from the Crusaders, and to give it up on a silver platter to the Israeli Jews. It should be noted that hundreds of thousands of Arabs and Muslims died battling the Christian Crusaders between the 11th-13th centuries, for the sole purpose of cleansing the Holy Land from the Crusaders. Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims often wonder where the Zionist Jews were when the Holy Land really needed their assistance during the Crusade genocide! Was Palestine a "Promised" or "non-Promised" Land, that is the question?
According to Barak's offer, the proposed Palestinian areas would have been cut from East to West and from North to South, so that the Palestinian state would have consisted of a group of islands, each surrounded by Israeli settlers and soldiers. No sovereign nation would accept such an arrangement-that could hinder its strategic national security and interests, click here for a map illustration.
It's not only that the future Palestinian state would have been completely demilitarized and Israeli early warning radar installation would have been installed deep in the Palestinian areas, but also its economical, social, and political relations with its neighboring Arab states would have been severely scrutinized by Israel as well.
Not in Arafat's defense, however, it's worth noting that he took a risky political decision when he signed the Oslo Agreement in 1993, even prior to receiving assurances that any UN resolution concerning Palestine would be implemented, not even one. Consequently, over seven years after Oslo, Arafat has little to show his people, especially after giving up so much upfront and in the Wye River Agreement. For example,
The occupied West Bank and Gaza strip have more Israeli Jewish colonies and bypass roads than ever,
Palestinian Arab Jerusalem is continuously being ethnically cleansed of its Palestinian population, and its Palestinian Arab identity is being stripped day by day,
Unemployment has tripled, and above all
Arafat appears increasingly to be an Israeli and American stooge, whose primary job is to control the Palestinian people the way Americans and Israelis see fit.
It's fundamentally wrong and very misleading to blame Arafat for the outbreak of resistance against the Israeli Occupation Forces in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Zionists often prefer to blame Arab leaders rather than tackling the core issues of the conflict, this is usually done for the purpose of buying time hoping that Palestinians would lose hope. The Oslo Agreement's fundamental flaw was that it had attempted to scratch the surface of the core issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and not to necessarily solve them. Any agreement, similar to the Oslo Agreement, is destined for failure if it won't address the core issues of the conflict, such as the Palestinian Right of Return, the status of Jerusalem, water allocations, and the borders of the emerging states.
It is very possible that Palestinians and Israelis are not yet ripe for a final peace settlement, however, that is no excuse to accept any interim "peace agreement" that compromises critical Palestinian national interests. Until a fair and a just peace agreement comes up, which must address the core issues, both communities have to start educating themselves about the conflict and to hope for the best.
Now we will refute it:
At the failed Camp David summit, Arafat was clearly ambushed by Clinton and Barak, when both presented him a deal that was much more favorable to Israel than to Palestine. Because of domestic U.S. political reasons, a sitting U.S. president could never propose a deal that is unfavorable to Israel. What was fundamentally wrong at Camp David that Arafat was negotiating in miles while Barak was negotiating in inches. It's worth taking a note that it's the Palestinian people who owned and operated 93% of Palestine's land as of 1948, click here for a breakdown of Palestinian vs. Zionist land ownership as of 1946. In a nutshell, Arafat was presented with "a take it or leave it deal" either Palestinians had to give up their claims to most of East Jerusalem and forfeit their Right of Return, and in return Palestinians would "gain" a non-contiguous state on parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, or the whole Clinton-Barak offer had to be rejected outright; which he did.
One CENTRAL FACT, which is usually suppressed in the Western media, is that the Israeli government has previously offered most of the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip to King Hussein (with the exception of occupied East Jerusalem). However, the king of Jordan rejected the "generous" offer outright. In an interview with H.M. King Hussein, he stated:
"... I was offered the return of something like 90 plus percent of the territories, 98 percent even, excluding [occupied East] Jerusalem, but I couldn't accept. As far as I am concerned, it was either every single inch that I was responsible for or nothing." (Iron Wall, p. 264)
So to claim that:
"Barak went further than any other Israeli leaders for peace"
is a BIG LIE because other Israeli leaders were willing to handover more occupied lands and sovereignty to King Hussein in return for the Israeli version of "peace".
All Israelis, Zionists, and Americans must understand that no Arab leader could entertain the thought of such an offer, not even King Hussein himself when he was alive. From our point of view, anything is negotiable except for the Right of Return and East Jerusalem. What was offered at the failed Camp David summit is unacceptable to many Palestinians for the following reasons:
The implementation of the Palestinian Right of Return, based on UN GA resolution 194, is THE KEY for ending the conflict. So any peace process that does not address the R.O.R. is nothing but a temporary cease fire, and the conflict eventually would flare up again. It should be emphasized that the majority of the Palestinian people are refugees, and for any agreement to hold, it must neutralize this vital political block.
To even think that King Hussein and his grandfather King Abdullah refused to relinquish sovereignty over Jerusalem to the Israelis, and to expect the Palestinian people to do the exact opposite, is LUDICROUS. Keep in mind that it's a well known fact that the Hashemites has been a central factor in protecting Israel's interests even before its inception in 1948, This fact is rarely disputed among historians, click here to read more about the Hashemites role during the 1948 war.
Jerusalem is extremely important from an Islamic point of view because it was the first Qibla before Mecca, and the third holiest site for Muslims after Mecca and Medina. Even if you disagree with this assessment, from a political point of view Jerusalem is the most unifying factor amongst Arabs and Muslims.
Most Arabs cannot comprehend the thought that Arabs and Muslims fought so bravely to cleanse Jerusalem from the Crusaders, and to give it up on a silver platter to the Israeli Jews. It should be noted that hundreds of thousands of Arabs and Muslims died battling the Christian Crusaders between the 11th-13th centuries, for the sole purpose of cleansing the Holy Land from the Crusaders. Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims often wonder where the Zionist Jews were when the Holy Land really needed their assistance during the Crusade genocide! Was Palestine a "Promised" or "non-Promised" Land, that is the question?
According to Barak's offer, the proposed Palestinian areas would have been cut from East to West and from North to South, so that the Palestinian state would have consisted of a group of islands, each surrounded by Israeli settlers and soldiers. No sovereign nation would accept such an arrangement-that could hinder its strategic national security and interests, click here for a map illustration.
It's not only that the future Palestinian state would have been completely demilitarized and Israeli early warning radar installation would have been installed deep in the Palestinian areas, but also its economical, social, and political relations with its neighboring Arab states would have been severely scrutinized by Israel as well.
Not in Arafat's defense, however, it's worth noting that he took a risky political decision when he signed the Oslo Agreement in 1993, even prior to receiving assurances that any UN resolution concerning Palestine would be implemented, not even one. Consequently, over seven years after Oslo, Arafat has little to show his people, especially after giving up so much upfront and in the Wye River Agreement. For example,
The occupied West Bank and Gaza strip have more Israeli Jewish colonies and bypass roads than ever,
Palestinian Arab Jerusalem is continuously being ethnically cleansed of its Palestinian population, and its Palestinian Arab identity is being stripped day by day,
Unemployment has tripled, and above all
Arafat appears increasingly to be an Israeli and American stooge, whose primary job is to control the Palestinian people the way Americans and Israelis see fit.
It's fundamentally wrong and very misleading to blame Arafat for the outbreak of resistance against the Israeli Occupation Forces in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Zionists often prefer to blame Arab leaders rather than tackling the core issues of the conflict, this is usually done for the purpose of buying time hoping that Palestinians would lose hope. The Oslo Agreement's fundamental flaw was that it had attempted to scratch the surface of the core issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and not to necessarily solve them. Any agreement, similar to the Oslo Agreement, is destined for failure if it won't address the core issues of the conflict, such as the Palestinian Right of Return, the status of Jerusalem, water allocations, and the borders of the emerging states.
It is very possible that Palestinians and Israelis are not yet ripe for a final peace settlement, however, that is no excuse to accept any interim "peace agreement" that compromises critical Palestinian national interests. Until a fair and a just peace agreement comes up, which must address the core issues, both communities have to start educating themselves about the conflict and to hope for the best.
...because the experience of privilege and/or the pathological appetite for same produces people who never progress spiritually to the point of understanding what this word 'honor' truly means. That's why the middle class (a thing that hardly exists in most countries) is ALWAYS the big demographic prop supporting fascist politics. We're seeing this unfold here today just like it did in Germany in the 1930s. Privileged middle class people everywhere are spoiled selfish babies who just want to feel cozy-safe in their comfy cushions. Everybody else can sizzle and scream in hell. Who else does this remind you of? If it's true that Americans are in sympathy with Israelis and zionists, that's because they're birds of a feather, and it's neither surprising nor redeeming.
...because the experience of privilege and/or the pathological appetite for same produces people who never progress spiritually to the point of understanding what this word 'honor' truly means. That's why the middle class (a thing that hardly exists in most countries) is ALWAYS the big demographic prop supporting fascist politics. We're seeing this unfold here today just like it did in Germany in the 1930s.
I know. As Nessie would say its a Ad Populum falacy. I just wanted to get something out quick before they autoblocked me. Yes, the majority of the American public eats at McDonalds twice a week and watches American Idol, so having the majority of Americans supporting Israel makes me feel neither safe nor confident.
Privileged middle class people everywhere are spoiled selfish babies who just want to feel cozy-safe in their comfy cushions.
Not necessarily. Before you can think about and act on higher principles, you need to be fed and secure. Those who are just barely hanging in seldom have the time or the energy to make change. Survival is too big a distraction. Seems to me if you could mobilize the middle classs- who have time and resources, and who are generally screwed in the day to day aspects of life in America, you could have the potential for change. Don't know how to motivate them, though.....
I know. As Nessie would say its a Ad Populum falacy. I just wanted to get something out quick before they autoblocked me. Yes, the majority of the American public eats at McDonalds twice a week and watches American Idol, so having the majority of Americans supporting Israel makes me feel neither safe nor confident.
Privileged middle class people everywhere are spoiled selfish babies who just want to feel cozy-safe in their comfy cushions.
Not necessarily. Before you can think about and act on higher principles, you need to be fed and secure. Those who are just barely hanging in seldom have the time or the energy to make change. Survival is too big a distraction. Seems to me if you could mobilize the middle classs- who have time and resources, and who are generally screwed in the day to day aspects of life in America, you could have the potential for change. Don't know how to motivate them, though.....
"Before you can think about and act on higher principles, you need to be fed and secure."
The trouble here is that among privileged Westerners, this is overwhelmingly a phenomenon of young people. As they age, they seem to get scared and greedy and swing over to being the antithesis of youthful idealism. Nobody illustrates this better than the Baby Boomers, who were really onto something back in the '60s, but now look what's happened to them. They're George Bush's minions now, most of them -- I don't care what they claim. And it's the geezers who own all the wealth and wield the real power, always. Show me a middle-class-and-up American geezer and I'll show you a corrupt fuck
The trouble here is that among privileged Westerners, this is overwhelmingly a phenomenon of young people. As they age, they seem to get scared and greedy and swing over to being the antithesis of youthful idealism. Nobody illustrates this better than the Baby Boomers, who were really onto something back in the '60s, but now look what's happened to them. They're George Bush's minions now, most of them -- I don't care what they claim. And it's the geezers who own all the wealth and wield the real power, always. Show me a middle-class-and-up American geezer and I'll show you a corrupt fuck
Israel will fight its neighbors to the last American!
I see and work with people who were dedicated activists on multiple fronts in their youth but have succumbed to laziness, materialism and a more conservative stance. (While 'settling' and voting Democrat..) But I've also planned direct actions/protests/ect. with folks twice my age (I'm 37) who are still active and fighting the good fight (ready and willing to do CD, ect.)
Tia, you are right, if we COULD mobilize the complacent middle class majority, good things could happen...unfortunately in this country we are indoctrinated into US style capitalism and the associated self-centered/ethnocentric/selfishness that allows, even nurtures the ability to not care about your neighbor, much less someone even farther away...Hell, in today's climate where words invented by nutcases like Michael Savage like "islamofascism" are 'mainstream-ized'--how do have a chance to sway the masses? By and far, the media is off limits to anything outside of the box...It's quite sad.
I've done a little more looking into SV40--
Tia, you are right, if we COULD mobilize the complacent middle class majority, good things could happen...unfortunately in this country we are indoctrinated into US style capitalism and the associated self-centered/ethnocentric/selfishness that allows, even nurtures the ability to not care about your neighbor, much less someone even farther away...Hell, in today's climate where words invented by nutcases like Michael Savage like "islamofascism" are 'mainstream-ized'--how do have a chance to sway the masses? By and far, the media is off limits to anything outside of the box...It's quite sad.
I've done a little more looking into SV40--
I agree there are older people who never stray from the righteous path. Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti, and Howard Zinn come to mind. All three grew up in humble circumstances as children of WORKING-class parents, as did every steadfast leftist I have ever known. That's WORKING class, not MIDDLE class. Crucial distinction. Take some poser, on the other hand, who grew up in the 1950s 'burbs with a doctor dad and a homemaker mom and dig down through the layers of their egotistical bullshit and you'll discover a closet republican like Becky Johnson just about every time. This is the whole problem with the "left" in America today.
I even know a guy who grew up surrounded by famous 1960s peace activists, one of whom was his dad, who came out of a 1930s radical working-class background. By the '60s, however, the dad was university faculty, which introduced his kids to privilege at a crucial age. Today his son is about the most disgusting fuckin fraud I have ever seen, real good at crowing a radical line of bullshit, but in fact he's a hardcore money-grubbing capitalist who wouldn't be caught dead doing the stuff his dad did.
Too much to lose... which does it every time
REAL leftists are smart people who get fucked by class culture as children and understand politics through this fixed lucid lens. They understand that privilege is the Real Enemy and despise it accordingly, want no part of it. Stupid people who get fucked the same way don't figure in because they never figure out what happened to them, they're too easily tricked into blaming false enemies, e.g. "tax-and-spend liberals." REAL leftists have become exceedingly rare relative to the heyday of US leftism 1880 to 1940
I even know a guy who grew up surrounded by famous 1960s peace activists, one of whom was his dad, who came out of a 1930s radical working-class background. By the '60s, however, the dad was university faculty, which introduced his kids to privilege at a crucial age. Today his son is about the most disgusting fuckin fraud I have ever seen, real good at crowing a radical line of bullshit, but in fact he's a hardcore money-grubbing capitalist who wouldn't be caught dead doing the stuff his dad did.
Too much to lose... which does it every time
REAL leftists are smart people who get fucked by class culture as children and understand politics through this fixed lucid lens. They understand that privilege is the Real Enemy and despise it accordingly, want no part of it. Stupid people who get fucked the same way don't figure in because they never figure out what happened to them, they're too easily tricked into blaming false enemies, e.g. "tax-and-spend liberals." REAL leftists have become exceedingly rare relative to the heyday of US leftism 1880 to 1940
Dare I speculate, then, that your hostility towards urban Jews is based on their tendency towards upward mobility? As a group, many have abandoned their roots and sought professional positions and all the trappings thereof...
My hostility toward fanatical ZIONIST Jews is due to the fact that they're disgusting hypocrites, always leaping to scream "anti-Semite!! RACIST!!!" when they themselves are the most grotesque brazen racists in sight anywhere. There is a particle of truth in what you're saying, though, because major cities nurture a distinctive Western urbanite personality that is especially corruptible in the way I've described, and many Jews epitomize this type. I've said before that Jewish culture's dark side has little to do with Judaism per se and everything to do with Jews living in cities continuously going back into antiquity. Cities are death-beds of the soul, and Europeans/Americans pretty well seal this case on themselves.
Jefferson:
"The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of government, as sores do to the strength of the human body."
Its the rats in the cage experiment- the more rats in a limited space, the worse they behave, eventually destroying each other. Yep. We are almost there.
"The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of government, as sores do to the strength of the human body."
Its the rats in the cage experiment- the more rats in a limited space, the worse they behave, eventually destroying each other. Yep. We are almost there.
That classic experiment is the perfect analogy. Animals driven nuts by zero survival pressure and their own lack of foresight. And to think modern humans imagine they're smarter than rats! I really seriously have my doubts
Tomorrow marks the harvest festival of Shavout. One of the traditions of this holiday is to stay up all night studying. If you want to learn more about Judiasm (i know you don't, but ...)you could check it out or an hour or so
Its in Berkeley, and its free: (At the JCC, Walnut St.)
Of interest to you, perhaps:
7:50-8:50: Teaching sessions:
Jhos Singer
Beth Sirull- Can Capitalism be Kosher: Socially Responsible Business in
the Torah
Shana Winokur: The Jubilee Concept: Economic Justice Then and Now
(Judiasm-its isn't just about bowing to a patriarchal diety, any more)
Its in Berkeley, and its free: (At the JCC, Walnut St.)
Of interest to you, perhaps:
7:50-8:50: Teaching sessions:
Jhos Singer
Beth Sirull- Can Capitalism be Kosher: Socially Responsible Business in
the Torah
Shana Winokur: The Jubilee Concept: Economic Justice Then and Now
(Judiasm-its isn't just about bowing to a patriarchal diety, any more)
|
For more information:
http://www.StopTheWall.org
The plan begins by removing tens of thousands of settlers and dismantling 60-70 settlements. read about it in a neutral source before rushing to judgement.
Zionists hate the truth.
Palestinians see settlements, illegal under international law, as legitimate targets in their struggle for independence. That 200,000 Jews live in 145 settlements scattered among three million Palestinians on West Bank and Gaza lands Israel captured in the 1967 war is a major grievance driving the uprising. (July 20, 2001)
TRUTH WARPER WRITES: "Take some poser, on the other hand, who grew up in the 1950s 'burbs with a doctor dad and a homemaker mom and dig down through the layers of their egotistical bullshit and you'll discover a closet republican like Becky Johnson just about every time. This is the whole problem with the "left" in America today."
BECKY: Since Truth Warper has attacked me by name, I am hoping the indybay monitors will realize the fairness of allowing me to respond without deleting my entry in their usual censorship mode of any entry that doesn't strictly agree with their unwritten political agenda.
I am a registered Green. Before that I was a Democrat. I have never been a Republican. TW attacks my middle-class roots (my father was an engineer not a doctor). However, since I turned 18 years old I have been self-supporting receiving little financial support from my well-off parents.
As a single mom with three kids, I managed to put myself through college while on welfare. If TW thinks there is some kind of priviledge associated with raising three kids on food stamps and welfare checks, he/she has a truly warped sense of economy. I am now employed as a low-paid substitute teacher as my day job.
As for being a leftist, I more than qualify. I've been a member of anti-war organizations since the Vietnam War. I joined the Rochester Area People for Ending the War in Vietnam Now when I was fifteen years old. Since then, I have organzied protests against the Yugoslavian war and the War in Iraq. Do a google search for "Sex for Peace" and see the event I organized in March of 2003. When I was in High School, I was the editor of an underground newspaper called "Free Radio America."
I wrote for ten years for Street Spirit on homeless issues ---until Joseph Anderson of Berkeley conducted an e-mail harassment campaign to get me fired.
I have organized protests against the Sleeping Ban, the begging ban, the Move-along Law, and most recently the 15-Minute Law which criminalizes homeless people who take shelter in the dry public parking garages in Santa Cruz.
On my television show, Club Cruz, I recently taped shows on raising the minimum wage, the Genocide in Sudan, and the Caravan to Cuba. I also co-produced "Bathrobespierre's Broadsides: Civil Rights for the Poor" on Free Radio Santa Cruz for ten years ----as well as hosted the FRSC station in my backyard twice.
My 12-yr-old daughter challenged the FCC when they paid a visit a few years back. Due to my training, she asked the FCC agents if they had a search warrant. When they responded that "they didn't need no stinkin' search warrant" she told them "Well, you can't tresspass!" She drove them to the curb!!
I joined LA.IMC in August of 2000 right after I was clubbed by an LAPD officer. I sued, and won a settlement in federal court!! I have been an outspoken critic of police brutality.
I've supported Food Not Bombs and am a personal friend of Keith McHenry who was one of the co-founders.
Ive been interviewed on Berkeley Liberation Radio by Steven Dunifer. I was the invited speaker by the SF Coalition on HOmelessness for an event publicizing the release of an annual report on the criminalization of homelessness.
I am STILL a member of HUFF, Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom in Santa Cruz. See our website (and numerous articles by me as well) at http://www.huffsantacruz.org
Politically I am against the Patriot Act, against the war in Iraq, opposed to much of what the Bush admin. does, against prayer in schools, in favor of legalized abortion, against flurodation of water, in favor of the decriminalization of marijuana, in favor of stem-cell research, in favor of Gay marriage, in favor of a negative income tax, in favor of repeal of Prop 13, against the death penalty, in favor of legalizing immigration, and in the 2000 election I voted for Ralph Nader. Oh, and my grandparents were Communists.
TW says I am a "Republican" because I support Israel's right to exist as the national homeland for the Jewish people.
Go figure.
BECKY: Since Truth Warper has attacked me by name, I am hoping the indybay monitors will realize the fairness of allowing me to respond without deleting my entry in their usual censorship mode of any entry that doesn't strictly agree with their unwritten political agenda.
I am a registered Green. Before that I was a Democrat. I have never been a Republican. TW attacks my middle-class roots (my father was an engineer not a doctor). However, since I turned 18 years old I have been self-supporting receiving little financial support from my well-off parents.
As a single mom with three kids, I managed to put myself through college while on welfare. If TW thinks there is some kind of priviledge associated with raising three kids on food stamps and welfare checks, he/she has a truly warped sense of economy. I am now employed as a low-paid substitute teacher as my day job.
As for being a leftist, I more than qualify. I've been a member of anti-war organizations since the Vietnam War. I joined the Rochester Area People for Ending the War in Vietnam Now when I was fifteen years old. Since then, I have organzied protests against the Yugoslavian war and the War in Iraq. Do a google search for "Sex for Peace" and see the event I organized in March of 2003. When I was in High School, I was the editor of an underground newspaper called "Free Radio America."
I wrote for ten years for Street Spirit on homeless issues ---until Joseph Anderson of Berkeley conducted an e-mail harassment campaign to get me fired.
I have organized protests against the Sleeping Ban, the begging ban, the Move-along Law, and most recently the 15-Minute Law which criminalizes homeless people who take shelter in the dry public parking garages in Santa Cruz.
On my television show, Club Cruz, I recently taped shows on raising the minimum wage, the Genocide in Sudan, and the Caravan to Cuba. I also co-produced "Bathrobespierre's Broadsides: Civil Rights for the Poor" on Free Radio Santa Cruz for ten years ----as well as hosted the FRSC station in my backyard twice.
My 12-yr-old daughter challenged the FCC when they paid a visit a few years back. Due to my training, she asked the FCC agents if they had a search warrant. When they responded that "they didn't need no stinkin' search warrant" she told them "Well, you can't tresspass!" She drove them to the curb!!
I joined LA.IMC in August of 2000 right after I was clubbed by an LAPD officer. I sued, and won a settlement in federal court!! I have been an outspoken critic of police brutality.
I've supported Food Not Bombs and am a personal friend of Keith McHenry who was one of the co-founders.
Ive been interviewed on Berkeley Liberation Radio by Steven Dunifer. I was the invited speaker by the SF Coalition on HOmelessness for an event publicizing the release of an annual report on the criminalization of homelessness.
I am STILL a member of HUFF, Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom in Santa Cruz. See our website (and numerous articles by me as well) at http://www.huffsantacruz.org
Politically I am against the Patriot Act, against the war in Iraq, opposed to much of what the Bush admin. does, against prayer in schools, in favor of legalized abortion, against flurodation of water, in favor of the decriminalization of marijuana, in favor of stem-cell research, in favor of Gay marriage, in favor of a negative income tax, in favor of repeal of Prop 13, against the death penalty, in favor of legalizing immigration, and in the 2000 election I voted for Ralph Nader. Oh, and my grandparents were Communists.
TW says I am a "Republican" because I support Israel's right to exist as the national homeland for the Jewish people.
Go figure.
For more information:
http://www.huffsantacruz.org
and you chose to put the burden of supporting your children on taxpayers.
Great. Thanks for that.
Not sure if that counts as "self-supporting" though.
Great. Thanks for that.
Not sure if that counts as "self-supporting" though.
In another thread he admits marrying into wealth and priviledge, allowing him to enjoy the trappings of the"good life" , while maintaining the self righteousness of an aging hippie.
To don't have to scratch very far to find "hypocrite". Its in the layer below "anti- Semite".
T'uh.
To don't have to scratch very far to find "hypocrite". Its in the layer below "anti- Semite".
T'uh.
No matter which party you align yourself with, the fact remains: You're views on Israel/Palestine are perfectly aligned with the neocon warpigs you claim to fight in every other arena...
Okay Becky, that's all good stuff you've listed. I commend your sincere accomplishments. Where I find it impossible to reconcile my idea of "left" with my experience of Becky Johnson is when you pull shit like your apologia for the killing of Iman al Hams. That's disgusting and insane, Becky, and it's only the best example of the insane disgusting fascist side of your politics.
Also, what you did in your teens and twenties isn't necessarily pertinent. The majority of hippy 'boomers did such things in the '60s but have now gone chicken and corrupt and quietly slunk off to the right. THAT'S WHY THINGS ARE THE WAY THEY ARE NOW. Boomers now dominate US politics, which qualifies them as the most corrupt rotten generation of hypocrite assholes ever. I don't give a fuck what they did 40 years ago. To the extent that they've crawled back inside the selfish middle class wombs they came out of, they've forfeited those medals. The thing that makes me want to slap them around most is that you can't get them to see it. Their self-images gelled back in the '60s and they still think they're wacky leftists. In fact they've morphed by imperceptible degrees into being more right-wing than their grandparents, who after all CAME OUT OF LESS PRIVILEGE.
It's like with nessie and the way he's a rabid critic of all things communist now. I bet you he wasn't in the '60s, but the Eisenhower/McCarthy screaming fascist programming of the first decade of his life has gradually reclaimed him. Early childhood experience is incredibly powerful this way. People have a way of inexorably returning to it. It's like gravity or something. If you spent those years with your head buried in the big creamy tit of complacent middle class privilege, that's what you return to and that is NOT a leftist place to be.
Every boomer fraud I know waves around their Democratic Party affiliation as if this is stilll a credential of being some sort of radical, when it obviously just isn't AND HAS NEVER BEEN. Both parties are just obviously painted hoors holding their feet behind their ears and crooning "do me, sailor" to the billionaires. All the purported differences between them are a deliberate design meant to fool the public into believing it has a real choice. In fact, neither party really decides shit, the billionaires do. If they get in the way they get JFKed, but that seldom has to happen because they're savvy enough that they've figured this out -- or they never make it past dog-catcher.
As the Greens make themselves viable, they're going the same way. It's inevitable given the system's structural realities. The case history of the Greens in Europe bears this out.
There's only one way to reverse this dynamic and that's with upheaval or at least the real threat of it. The arrogant decadent aristocrats must be made to realize the 800-ton mile-high King Kong is fully awake now and has realized itself and-- oh fuck, we just poked in the eye again, oh fuck! RRUUUNNNNNN!!!!! REAL leftists understand this intuitively. They never lose their revolutionary fire. Fake-ass bourgeois boomer "leftists" get drawn into a status quo mentality by their trust funds, their TV sets, and the gravity well of childhood experience. Then they turn on the real leftists and become closet ratfinks. Examples are legion. You see them mouthing "oh, Tim Leary was so cool" but when it comes to tuning in, turning on, and dropping out they've become a buncha fuckin Archie Bunkers. They've got too much to lose... That kills the fire every time.
Again, it's the psychological bedrock of early childhood experience that separates the steely-eyed revolutionaries braced for death from the retreating fat-fuck frauds. The working class / middle class dividing line here is absolutely real. The greatest triumph of US social engineers is their discovery of a way to nip this in the bud: cherrypicking smart kids out of the working class and reassigning them to the middle class, leaving the working class permanently brain-drained and impotent. Hello Good Germans, goodbye revolutionaries. Tia calls this the blessing of upward mobility. I call it a curse. The steel of total revolutionary resolve is forged into people by the merciless hammer of class injustice. There is no substitute. Take it away and corruption will rule absolutely.
Also, what you did in your teens and twenties isn't necessarily pertinent. The majority of hippy 'boomers did such things in the '60s but have now gone chicken and corrupt and quietly slunk off to the right. THAT'S WHY THINGS ARE THE WAY THEY ARE NOW. Boomers now dominate US politics, which qualifies them as the most corrupt rotten generation of hypocrite assholes ever. I don't give a fuck what they did 40 years ago. To the extent that they've crawled back inside the selfish middle class wombs they came out of, they've forfeited those medals. The thing that makes me want to slap them around most is that you can't get them to see it. Their self-images gelled back in the '60s and they still think they're wacky leftists. In fact they've morphed by imperceptible degrees into being more right-wing than their grandparents, who after all CAME OUT OF LESS PRIVILEGE.
It's like with nessie and the way he's a rabid critic of all things communist now. I bet you he wasn't in the '60s, but the Eisenhower/McCarthy screaming fascist programming of the first decade of his life has gradually reclaimed him. Early childhood experience is incredibly powerful this way. People have a way of inexorably returning to it. It's like gravity or something. If you spent those years with your head buried in the big creamy tit of complacent middle class privilege, that's what you return to and that is NOT a leftist place to be.
Every boomer fraud I know waves around their Democratic Party affiliation as if this is stilll a credential of being some sort of radical, when it obviously just isn't AND HAS NEVER BEEN. Both parties are just obviously painted hoors holding their feet behind their ears and crooning "do me, sailor" to the billionaires. All the purported differences between them are a deliberate design meant to fool the public into believing it has a real choice. In fact, neither party really decides shit, the billionaires do. If they get in the way they get JFKed, but that seldom has to happen because they're savvy enough that they've figured this out -- or they never make it past dog-catcher.
As the Greens make themselves viable, they're going the same way. It's inevitable given the system's structural realities. The case history of the Greens in Europe bears this out.
There's only one way to reverse this dynamic and that's with upheaval or at least the real threat of it. The arrogant decadent aristocrats must be made to realize the 800-ton mile-high King Kong is fully awake now and has realized itself and-- oh fuck, we just poked in the eye again, oh fuck! RRUUUNNNNNN!!!!! REAL leftists understand this intuitively. They never lose their revolutionary fire. Fake-ass bourgeois boomer "leftists" get drawn into a status quo mentality by their trust funds, their TV sets, and the gravity well of childhood experience. Then they turn on the real leftists and become closet ratfinks. Examples are legion. You see them mouthing "oh, Tim Leary was so cool" but when it comes to tuning in, turning on, and dropping out they've become a buncha fuckin Archie Bunkers. They've got too much to lose... That kills the fire every time.
Again, it's the psychological bedrock of early childhood experience that separates the steely-eyed revolutionaries braced for death from the retreating fat-fuck frauds. The working class / middle class dividing line here is absolutely real. The greatest triumph of US social engineers is their discovery of a way to nip this in the bud: cherrypicking smart kids out of the working class and reassigning them to the middle class, leaving the working class permanently brain-drained and impotent. Hello Good Germans, goodbye revolutionaries. Tia calls this the blessing of upward mobility. I call it a curse. The steel of total revolutionary resolve is forged into people by the merciless hammer of class injustice. There is no substitute. Take it away and corruption will rule absolutely.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network