OneVoice Palestinian activists join mass West Bank unity rallies

OneVoice Palestinian activists participated in massive West Bank unity rallies on Tuesday, demanding reconciliation between bitter rivals Fatah and Hamas as the first necessary step toward ending the occupation and resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Following demonstrations that began in Gaza on Monday, thousands gathered today in the West Bank cities of Bethlehem, Nablus, and Ramallah for peaceful unity rallies organized by Palestinian youth groups on simple pages of the social networking site Facebook. OneVoice Palestinian activists called on their chapters to ensure the demonstrations remain nonviolent. They have also been tweeting throughout the day on the rallies. Visit OneVoice’s blog to view the movement’s real-time Twitter stream.

“What we’re seeing today is the start of the Palestinian Spring,” said Samer Makhlouf, executive director of OneVoice Palestine. “At the heart of these peaceful rallies lies a youthful generation—inspired by the Egyptian revolution—demanding national unity as the necessary first step to end the occupation and resolve the conflict.”
The organizers themselves also stressed the nonviolent nature of the rallies. Beyond the call for unity, they will demand the release of all political prisoners held by Fatah and Hamas and “full democratic representation for Palestinians all over the world.” They also called on all participants to avoid waving flags or holding up posters that showed affiliation with political parties.

Rallies were also scheduled to be held around the world, including outside the offices of the Palestinian General Delegation to the U.K. in London and the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the U.N. in New York.
“OneVoice was founded on the principle that the key unfulfilled role in this conflict is that of civil society,” said John Lyndon, executive director of OneVoice Europe. “Today, we see ordinary people demanding unity and an end to occupation. We encourage leaders – both in the region and further afield – to listen very carefully to what they are saying and act accordingly.”

OneVoice Palestine recognized the importance of ending factional divisions as a precursor to ending the occupation, establishing a viable, independent Palestinian state, and achieving lasting peace in the region. They launched major activities across the West Bank early in March to channel the energy on the street into a deafening cry for national unity.

OneVoice’s Palestinian activists spread thousands of bumper stickers emblazoned with the words, “the people want to end the occupation, the settlements, the [internal] division – help build the state,” on the streets of Bethlehem, Hebron, Nablus, Qalqilya, and Ramallah. They will be introducing billboards, radio and television spots, massive murals, and several youth-led initiatives in the coming months.

Iran and Peace Activists: Clarifying the Confusion

Here's a recent article by Danny Postel and Nader Hashemi which is well worth reading.

We’re pleased to have received several thoughtful responses to our recent blog post “Why Peace Activists Should Take an Active Interest in the Green Movement in Iran”. One reader asked what we meant by our claim that there is considerable confusion among peace activists about Iran. We’re glad he asked about this. Here are a few examples.

Back in 2006, the Iranian Nobel Peace Laureate, human rights lawyer and women’s rights advocate Shirin Ebadi gave a lecture in London. As someone who defends the victims of the Iranian regime’s repression — indeed as someone who has done jail time for her work on that front — the issue of the Islamic Republic’s human rights violations tends to feature rather centrally in her scheme of things. Which is not to say that it’s the only issue on her agenda, or that it in any way blunts her criticisms of the United States and its foreign policy. Quite the contrary. She has spoken out in no uncertain terms against the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, against the Guantánamo detainee camp, and the torture at Abu Ghraib — and has made it utterly clear that she opposes any US intervention in Iran. And yet, at her lecture in London, an antiwar activist told her that she should not denounce Iran’s human rights record — indeed not discuss it at all — explaining that doing so only plays into the hands of the warmongers and fuels the fires of imperialism. Ebadi upbraided that antiwar activist in the strongest terms. Leaning over the lectern and waving her finger at him, she made plain that any antiwar movement that advocates silence in the face of tyranny, for whatever reason, could count her out.
That antiwar activist may have been especially brazen and presumptuous in telling Ebadi what she should and shouldn’t say about her own government — few peace activists would dare do such a thing. Yet his thinking reflects a widespread sensibility in the peace movement. There’s a pervasive sense that we shouldn’t criticize the Iranian government lest we somehow fuel the fires of the warmongers in Washington. What Ebadi — and multitudes of other Iranian labor, student, peace, and human rights activists — contend is that we can and should do both — that we rub our tummies and pat our heads at the same time — and that there’s no contradiction or even tension between the two. As one slogan of Iran’s student movement puts it: “Our struggle is twofold: against internal oppression and external foreign threats.” We could do worse than to follow the spirit and logic of this formulation.

Another source and instance of the confusion comes from Hugo Chávez’s enthusiastic embracing of the reactionary and authoritarian Ahmadinejad. Venezuela’s Foreign Ministry denounced the Green movement from the get-go, issuing the following statement in June 2009:

The Bolivarian Government of Venezuela expresses its firm opposition to the vicious and unfounded campaign to discredit the institutions of the Islamic Republic of Iran, unleashed from outside, designed to roil the political climate of our brother country. From Venezuela, we denounce these acts of interference in the internal affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, while demanding an immediate halt to the maneuvers to threaten and destabilize the Islamic Revolution.

It’s important to note that trade unionists and student activists in Iran have expressed deep dismay about Chávez’s support for Ahmadinejad (see the Open letter to the workers of Venezuela on Hugo Chávez’s support for Ahmadinejad and “Problematic Brothers: Iranian Reaction to Chávez and Ahmadinejad”).

We wish we could say that admiration for Ahmadinejad among progressives was limited to Hugo Chávez — lamentably, it is not. Bitta Mostofi, an Iranian-American immigration and civil rights attorney who has traveled to Iraq with Voices for Creative Nonviolence and been active against the Israeli occupation, wrote a depressing account of a love fest for Ahmadinejad organized by a group of US antiwar activists in October. In her account, poignantly titled “Admiring Ahmadinejad and Overlooking Activists: We’re Better Than This”, Mostofi wrote:

Unfortunately, after over one hour of speeches from other activists in the room, I found myself feeling disappointed and dismayed. One after another, the guests at the dinner delivered prepared statements, posing no questions or challenges to the Iranian delegation. … They lauded Ahmadinejad as a hero … and likened the meeting to Malcolm X’s encounters in Africa with revolutionaries fighting against colonialism. … Speech after speech failed to address any calls for solidarity with the brave young men and women in Iran who took to the streets and demanded their rights in the face of government suppression.

Like Mostofi, we believe the peace movement should be better than this.

We highly recommend reading and signing on to the Campaign for Peace and Democracy’s important and principled statement End the War Threats and Sanctions Program Against Iran, Support the Struggle for Democracy Inside Iran.

Further Reading:
Reese Erlich
“Iran and Leftist Confusion”
Saeed Rahnema
“The Tragedy of the Left’s Discourse on Iran”
Muhammad Sahimi
“America’s Misguided Left”
Hamid Dabashi
“Left is Wrong on Iran”

Campaign for Peace and Democracy replies to a critic

 The Committee for Democracy is circulating an important statement in response to an attack.  The statement below is by  Joanne Landy, Thomas Harrison and Stephen R. Shalom of the Campaign for Peace and Democracy,

Phil Wilayto's message "Two petitions, two approaches toward defending Iran" urges people not to support the latest statement from the Campaign for Peace and Democracy (CPD), "End the War Threats and Sanctions Program Against Iran -- Support the Struggle for Democracy Inside Iran." As Wilayto notes with distress, the CPD statement has drawn wide support.

 

      If you would like to read the statement, see the emerging list of signers, or add your name to it, please go to our website. Initial signers are listed at the end of this message.

     CPD has two fundamental differences with Phil Wilayto.

     First, we don't believe that the current regime in Iran is one that the left ought to admire. Governments that outlaw labor unions, oppress religious minorities, deny rights to women, criminalize gays, execute minors, censor university curricula, persecute journalists and students, impose religious rule, and torture and kill prisoners and harass their families are opposed to everything the left should stand for.

     Second, we reject Wilayto's view that the left may not "take sides on internal matter in Iran" or, presumably, in any other country targeted by the United States. (Obviously Wilayto does not object to the left taking sides on the paramilitary terror in Colombia, or Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, or South African apartheid on the grounds that these are or were "internal matters.") Of course we don't want the U.S. government invading or intervening on the grounds of a country's oppressive government. Washington only invokes Ahmadinejad's crimes hypocritically and tries to use them to cover its own imperial goals. But it's another thing entirely for the independent left, which fights against its own government's reactionary domestic and international policies, to criticize rotten regimes around the world and speak up for victims of persecution. Grassroots international left solidarity should be extended to people in all countries, whether their governments are supported or opposed by Washington.

     In an attempt to discredit CPD, Wilayto declares that the Campaign was formed back in 1982 "with the goal of promoting anti-socialist movements in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe." While we were certainly opposed to the grim one-party-dictatorships of the East Bloc (which Wilayto seems to think were "socialist"), the fact is that the Campaign was launched with the goal of opposing the Cold War and both of the superpowers. In the words of our Statement of Purpose, we "engaged Western peace activists in the defense of the rights of democratic dissidents in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and enlisted East-bloc human rights activists against anti-democratic U.S. policies in countries like Nicaragua and Chile. Along with the European Nuclear Disarmament Movement, the Campaign was recognized internationally for its leadership in building grassroots solidarity across the Cold War divide, and for its refusal to 'choose sides' in the East-West conflict. CPD rejected the self-destructive notion that 'The enemy of my enemy must be my friend.'"

     Wilayto goes on to say that CPD's "campaigns are virtually all directed at undermining governments under attack by Western powers." This is patently false, and Wilayto must know it. A cursory look at our website (www.cpdweb.org) shows the following CPD actions over the past two years, in addition to our ongoing work on Iran:

- Our statement calling for an end to the blockade of Gaza and to all military aid to Israel.
- Our call to urge members of Congress to vote against the Afghan war supplemental funding.
- Our call for the withdrawal of all U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan and Pakistan now.
- Our participation in the anti-drone protest, called by Cindy Sheehan, at CIA headquarters.
- Our letter of solidarity to Egyptian labor protestors.
- Our work to gather signatures for a statement opposing the reactivation of the U.S. Fourth Fleet deployed to the Caribbean, the military coup d'etat in Honduras, and the agreement between the U.S. and Colombian governments granting the U.S. access to military bases in Colombia.
- Our opposition to the proposed Czech-U.S. agreement to accept a U.S. military radar.
- Our publicity for left groups in Pakistan calling for a cancellation of Pakistan's debt and a redirection of the enormous resources wasted on the criminal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan.
- Our support of the people of Haiti after the earthquake, noting that "We need to state clearly and firmly now that we oppose the U.S. military occupation of Haiti."   

     And yes we have criticized Cuba's treatment of dissidents. We believe that the right to freedom of expression, and to form independent unions, associations and political parties is indispensable to the ability of ordinary people to defend their interests in all countries. In Cuba today this is especially urgent as a "reform" that includes the layoff of 500,000 workers has been recently announced by the government, and as critical decisions are being made about Cuba's future.

     The fact is that Wilayto's problem with CPD is not, as he claims, that we disproportionately defend democratic rights in countries under attack by Western powers. The record shows that this is a totally unfounded charge. Wilayto and people with a similar perspective from the International Action Center, ANSWER, and Workers World simply think that the left and the peace movement should not defend democratic rights in these countries at all. In our view, this is an abdication of internationalism and elementary democratic principles.

     Wilayto paints a wildly distorted picture of Iran today. He suggests that the Ahmadinejad government defends of the interests of "the poor and the working class," neglecting to mention that it has presided over the privatization of large sections of the economy. (See Kaveh Ehsani, Arang Keshavarzian and Norma Claire Moruzzi, "Tehran, June 2009," Middle East Report Online, June 28, 2009). Wilayto also ignores the fact that Iran's government has recently announced the implementation of its long-held plan to lift subsidies on energy and basic foodstuffs. Despite the government's pledge to protect the most vulnerable from the effects of this policy, working and poor Iranians are justifiably terrified for their economic futures. In Greece, France, Spain and elsewhere workers have resisted their governments' austerity plans. Iranian popular resistance has already begun and may well explode, but it is crippled by the lack of freedom to organize, in particular by the repression of independent unions. (For details on the imprisonment of Iranian trade unionists like bus drivers union leader Mansour Osanloo, see Iran Labor Report .) Iran's independent trade unions have offered broad support to the Iranian democratic movement because its struggle opens up the possibility of freedom for unions to defend the interests of Iranian workers.

     Far from asking "U.S. activists to declare their unconditional support for all" forces opposed to the Iranian government "without distinction," as Wilayto alleges, CPD has criticized Green leaders such as Mir-Hossein Mousavi for reasons that are very pertinent to Iranian workers. We have drawn attention to the murders of leftists that took place under Mousavi's prime ministership, to his ties to billionaire Rafsanjani, and to his support for privatization. We did note, however, that Mousavi's call for women's rights and greater personal freedom had inspired many people, and that their sense of being cheated had pushed many to a more thoroughgoing critique of the system. And we expressed hope that Iranians would be moved to transcend Mousavi's politics, just as we hope that people in motion in progressive struggles in our own country will go beyond the conservative politics of most of their leaders.  (See CPD's "Question and Answer on the Iran Crisis " and CPD's "Reply to Critics Edward Herman and David Peterson on Iran ")  Moreover, our statement of support clearly refers to the mass democratic movement that emerged on the streets following the election of 2009 and has since been driven underground -- not to the armed bands in the Iranian countryside or expatriate Iranian royalists whose goal is anything but democracy and social justice.

     We at the Campaign for Peace and Democracy believe that solidarity among activists from different countries in their common fight for human rights, democracy, self-determination, workers' rights, women's rights and social justice is essential to the cause of peace. We are delighted at the strong support we have received for our Iran statement, which notes the hypocrisy of Washington's invoking concerns for democracy in Iran while supporting brutally authoritarian regimes such as those in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. We are pleased that so many have joined with us in our forthright opposition to U.S. military and economic threats against Iran while supporting the struggles within Iran for an open society. Again, if you would like to read the statement, add your name to it --  or donate to help publicize it, please go to http://cpdweb.org/stmts/1015/stmt.shtml .

 

Email: cpd@igc.org   Web: www.cpdweb.org

 

INITIAL SIGNERS OF CPD IRAN STATEMENT: Bashir Abu-Manneh, Michael Albert, Greg Albo, Elahe Amani, Kevin B. Anderson, Stanley Aronowitz, Parvin Ashrafi, Ed Asner, Rosalyn Baxandall, William O. Beeman, Judith Bello, Medea Benjamin, Blase Bonpane, Eileen Boris, Sam Bottone, Joan G. Botwinick, Laura Boylan, MD, Frank Brodhead, Steve Burns, Leslie Cagan, Antonia Cedrone, Adam Chmielewski, Noam Chomsky, Margaret W. Crane, Charles D'Adamo, Hamid Dabashi, Gail Daneker, Bogdan Denitch, Manuela Dobos, Tina Dobsevage, MD, Martin Duberman, Lisa Duggan, Stephen R. Early, Carolyn Eisenberg, Michael Eisenscher, Mark Engler, Gertrude Ezorsky, Samuel Farber, Thomas M. Fasy, MD, Dianne Feeley, John Feffer, Barry Finger, David Finkel, Bill Fletcher, Jr., Jean Fox, Dr. Harriet Fraad, David Friedman, Robert Gabrielsky, Bruce Gagnon, Barbara Garson, Irene Gendzier, Jack Gerson, Joseph Gerson, Sam Gindin, John Gorman, Greg Grandin, Jules Greenstein, Arun Gupta, E. Haberkern, Mina Hamilton, Cole Harrison, Thomas Harrison, Nader Hashemi, Howie Hawkins, Bill Henning, Michael Hirsch, Madelyn Hoffman, Iranian Centre for Peace, Freedom and Social Justice-Vancouver, Doug Ireland, Marianne Jackson, PhD, Melissa Jameson, Malalai Joya, Jan Kavan, Kathy Kelly, Tooba Keshtkar, Assaf Kfoury, Mina Khanlarzadeh, Jack Kurzweil, Dan La Botz, Micah Landau, Joanne Landy, Marc H. Lavietes, MD, Roger E. Leisner, Jesse Lemisch, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Traven Leyshon, Nelson Lichtenstein, Amy Littlefield, Martha Livingston, Robin Lloyd, Jan Majicek, Betty Mandell, Marvin Mandell, Nasir A. Mansoor, Dave Marsh, Don McCanne, MD, Scott McLemee, David McReynolds, Deborah Meier, Martin Melkonian, Marilyn Morehead, Bitta Mostofi, Erika Munk, Ulla Neuburger, Mary E. O'Brien, MD, Derrick O'Keefe, David Oakford, Rosemarie Pace, Leo Panitch, Mike Pattberg, Peace Action New York State, Maggie Phair, Christopher Phelps, Charlotte Phillips, MD, Frances Fox Piven, Danny Postel, Judy Rebick, Katie Robbins, Leonard Rodberg, Richard Roman, Bruce A. Rosen, Elizabeth Rosenthal, MD, Matthew Rothschild, Coleen Rowley, Saffaar Saaed, John Sanbonmatsu, Ajamu Sankofa, Saskia Sassen, Jennifer Scarlott, Jay Schaffner, Jason Schulman, Peter O. Schwartz, Lance Selfa, Stephen R. Shalom, Cindy Sheehan, Gar Smith, Stephen Soldz, Cheryl Stevenson, Patricia Storace, Bhaskar Sunkara, David Swanson, William K. Tabb, Hoshang Tareh Gol, Jonathan Tasini, Meredith Tax, Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, Sheila Thorne, Chris Toensing, Bernard Tuchman, Adaner Usmani, Wilbert van der Zeijden, Steven VanBever, David S. Vine, Barbara Webster, Lois Weiner, Suzi Weissman, Naomi Weisstein, Laurie Wen, Cornel West, Billy Wharton, Julia Willebrand, Reginald Wilson, Sherry Wolf, Julia Wrigley, and Leila Zand

 

World’s unions reject boycotts, embrace Israeli-Palestinian cooperation

[Positive news from TULIP.]

The international trade union movement has just delivered a stinging rebuff to advocates of the campaign to boycott Israel.
At its second world congress which just concluded in Vancouver, the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) rejected calls to support the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign targetting the Jewish state.
A vehemently anti-Israel resolution submitted by the Congress of South African Trade Unions never made it to the floor.
And in a stunning blow to pro-Hamas activists in some unions, the Israeli national trade union center Histadrut was honored by the global trade union movement.
Its leader, Ofer Eini, was elevated to the ITUC’s 25-member Executive Board as well as its General Council.  Eini was also elected as one of the organization’s Vice Presidents.
The ITUC has 312 affiliated organizations in 156 countries and territories representing 176 million workers.
Eini’s election followed calls by major unions in the UK and elsewhere for the Histadrut to be boycotted.  Instead, the international trade union movement has embraced the Israeli unions, understanding them — correctly — to be important partners in building peaceful relations between Israelis and Palestinians.
In a resolution adopted by the ITUC congress, the positive role of the Histadrut was made explicit:
“Congress welcomes the landmark agreement between Histadrut and the PGFTU on the rights of Palestinian workers, which was finalised with the assistance of the ITUC in August 2008, and initiatives by Global Union Federations in their sectors to support cooperation in defence of workers’ rights. This agreement, and other actions to promote decent work and end discrimination, are crucial to building the basis for just and equitable economic development.”
For the future, the ITUC resolution declared:
“Congress commits the ITUC to continue to support the strengthening of cooperation between the Palestinian and Israeli trade union movements and calls upon the international community to support Palestinian economic reconstruction and development, including through the ILO Palestinian Fund for Employment and Social Protection.”
In addition, the world’s trade unions

• Called for a two-state solution — and “universal recognition of Israel’s right to exist, next to an independent viable Palestinian state”
• Rejected “the extremist policies of Hamas“
• Condemned the Egyptian “decision to impose heavy restrictions on its border with Gaza”
• Acknowledged that Israeli’s December 2008 attack on Gaza came “in response to rocket attacks”
• Supported the 2002 “Road Map” for peace proposed by the United States, Russia, the United Nations and the European Union

The resolution adopted was highly critical of many Israeli policies, calling for an end to illegal settlements in the Palestinian territories, rejecting the blockade of Gaza and the building of a security fence, and so on.
But what stands out clearly is the commitment by the vast majority of the world’s trade unions to a two-state solution and to strengthening Israeli-Palestinian trade union cooperation.
This is welcome news for Israelis and Palestinians and a blow to the supporters of Hamas who have tried hard to isolate and demonize Israel within the trade union movement.

Code Pink Rethinks Its Call for Afghan Pullout

From the CSMonitor

Kabul, Afghanistan - When Medea Benjamin stood up in a Kabul meeting hall this weekend to ask Masooda Jalal if she would prefer more international troops or more development funds, the cofounder of US antiwar group Code Pink was hoping her fellow activist would support her call for US troop withdrawal.

She was disappointed.

Ms. Jalhal, the former Afghan minister of women, bluntly told her both were needed. "It is good for Afghanistan to have more troops – more troops committed with the aim of building peace and against war, terrorism, and security – along with other resources," she answered. "Coming together they will help with better reconstruction."

Though Afghans have their grievances against the international troops' presence, chief among them civilian casualties, many fear an abrupt departure would create a dangerous security vacuum to be filled by predatory and rapacious militias. Many women, primary victims of such groups in the past, are adamant that international troops stay until a sufficient number of local forces are trained and the rule of law established. (Read more about Afghan women's concerns here.)

During their weeklong visit here, in which they met with government officials, politicians, ministers, women activists, and civil society groups, the small team of Code Pink members had hoped to gather evidence to bolster their call for US troop withdrawal within two years, and capitalize on growing anxiety back home about the war.

Celebrate a victory for the peace movement

The Campaign for Peace and Democracy has a valuable statement on the decision of the Obama administration to drop plans to install a "star wars" missile defense installations in Eastern Europe. CPD worked closely with groups in Czechoslovakia and Poland to oppose the Bush plan. I supported them in this effort.

Here's is the CPD statement.

By now you've no doubt heard the good news that the Obama administration has canceled plans to deploy a military radar in the Czech Republic and Interceptor missiles in Poland. Although it is by no means the end of the story of resisting U.S. military power, this is a great victory for the peace movement around the world, and deserves to be celebrated! Excerpts from the recent victory statements of the Czech radar opponents are at the end of this message.

The majority of Czech and Polish people never supported these proposed U.S. military bases -- though you would never know it from reading the American media with its recent headlines about the cancellation of the bases such as "Eastern Europe Grumbles About Downgrade in US Ties," "Poles, Czechs: US Missile Defense Shift a Betrayal," or, perhaps most preposterous of all, "Eastern Europe Not Feeling the Love From Obama." These headlines make the classic error of presuming that the views of governments are necessarily the same as those of the people.

In the Czech Republic, relentless mass protest prevented the Czech Chamber of Deputies from ratifying the radar agreement: opponents engaged in a whole range of creative actions against the proposed base, from petition drives and marches to hunger strikes and street theater. Czech anti-radar activists succeeded in gaining the support of many politicians in their own country, and in generating solidarity around the world -- including here in the U.S. where, as you probably know, the Campaign for Peace and Democracy was a major organizer of support for the Czech protestors with our own sign-on statements, demonstrations, forums and publicity in The New York Times, The Nation, The Progressive, the New York Review of Books, and elsewhere. (See the CPD website for more information about our solidarity campaign since 2007.)

We can only speculate about the Obama administration's actual motives in canceling these missile "defense" plans. It was conceivably a simple military modernization to deploy more effective anti-missile weapons, as Robert Gates claimed in his op-ed in the The New York Times on September 20th. It may have been an attempt to moderate wasteful military spending, as administration spokespersons have said, since replacement weapons will cost less than those originally planned. It may have been an attempt to conciliate the Russians, who have seen the bases in Poland and the Czech Republic as the seeds of a threat to their own strategic military capability; the administration hopes to enlist the Russians in imposing heightened sanctions on Iran if it refuses to cooperate on nuclear issues.* But, though they are never likely to admit it, the administration and the Pentagon also had to take into consideration the dangerous consequences of trying to install these new bases in the face of negative popular opinion in the Czech Republic and Poland and the prospect of militant and very public resistance in the Czech Republic.

In his September 20 Op Ed Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made a point of stating that, "The future of missile defense in Europe is secure." He says the Pentagon plans to soon "deploy proven, sea-based SM-3 interceptor missiles -- weapons that are growing in capability -- in the areas where we see the greatest threat to Europe, and in about 2015, to place "upgraded SM-3s on the ground in Southern and Central Europe." (For an analysis of the Pentagon plans, see Bruce Gagnon's very helpful “Missile Defense: The Other Story" on the website of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space at http://www.space4peace.org/)

We are not reassured by these plans for military escalation, and we do not believe that such escalation is the way to respond to the threat of future Iranian nuclear capability. Instead, as we said in our original 2007 sign-on statement against the Czech radar, "The United States and other nuclear powers can best reduce the danger of nuclear warfare by taking major steps toward both nuclear and conventional disarmament and refraining from waging or threatening 'preventive' war -- not by expanding the nuclear threat. Such steps by the existing nuclear powers would create a political context that would powerfully discourage new countries from developing their own nuclear weapons."

Czech groups opposed to the radar have been celebrating their victory: “We have been active more than three years in the struggle to prevent this plan from materializing. We are very happy that finally the position of the US administration is in line with the will of majority of Czechs,” said Jan Tamas, spokesman of the Nonviolence movement, one of the Czech groups active in opposing the radar.

Another Czech anti-radar group, the No Bases Initiative, released a statement that said, in part,"The struggle against the radar has always been the struggle for democracy, for the right to decide on the principal orientation of the country in a referendum. Despite all difficulties and the arrogant and ignorant behavior of many politicians, it is clear that an important victory in our common struggle has been achieved. We should remember this, no matter how the situation develops in the future. It has been meaningful to sign the anti-radar petition and demonstrate against the radar, it has been meaningful to pose questions to the members of the Parliament and put pressure on them. Civic protest is meaningful.”

“For the civic No Bases Initiative (Ne zakladnam), this is not the end of our activities. We will go on, enriched by this experience. Nor does it mean the end of the U.S. anti-missile defense projects; discussion has already started about alternatives to the radar in the Czech Republic and to the missiles in Poland. But a the really good news remains ­ that we have been able to prove, within the broad anti-radar movement, and hand in hand with all those who took part in the most diverse anti-radar activities during these three years, that we have the power to change things to for the better.”

We join with our Czech colleagues in belief that “civic protest is meaningful.” We are committed to continuing the fight against nuclear escalation, missile “defense,” and U.S. militarism, including the growing wars against Afghanistan and Pakistan. --Joanne Landy and Thomas Harrison, Co-Directors, Campaign for Peace and Democracy

US Peace Activists Defend Shirin Ebadi

I've added my name to this letter from the Committee for Peace and Democracy.

We are writing to invite you to sign the open letter below from American peace activists in defense of Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian 2003 Nobel Peace Laureate and defender of women's rights and human rights for all. Your support can make a difference.

We believe that peace and democratic rights are deeply intertwined, and we defend freedom of expression whether or not we agree with the views being expressed. As peace activists, however, we are particularly concerned about the persecution of Shirin Ebadi, who has on many occasions repeated her opposition to the use of or threat to use U.S. military force against Iran. For example, on February 4, 2009 Ebadi was interviewed by Amy Goodman on her Democracy Now! television program. Goodman asked, "If the United States were to attack Iran, and when you look at the repression that you and others have suffered, would that help the democratic movement in Iran?" Ebadi replied firmly, [translated] "A military attack on Iran or even a threat of a military attack on Iran will deteriorate the situation of human rights and women's rights, because it gives an excuse to the government to repress them more and more often."


If Shirin Ebadi has no security inside Iran, then all peaceful civil society activists are at great risk. Indeed, the recent attacks on Ebadi take place against a background of stepped-up government repression. Trade union leaders, including Mansour Osanloo and Ebrahim Maddadi, are currently in prison; two women labor activists, Sussan Razani and Shiva Kheirabadi, were flogged on February 18, 2009 because of their participation in a May Day celebration. Women's rights defenders, including those involved in the "One Million Signatures Campaign" have been unfairly prosecuted and sentenced. Privacy and personal dignity are under siege. People who defy patriarchal codes prescribing how men and women should behave, and people who are suspected of homosexual conduct, have been routinely victimized, often violently. Students, including most recently students from Amir Kabir University in Tehran, have been persecuted and brutally attacked. Mothers for Peace protesting the war in Gaza were attacked by plain clothes security agents on January 11 of this year.

These developments strengthen warmongering voices on both sides and thus threaten to set back the peace movement opposing military action against Iran.

Initial signers include Ervand Abrahamian, Janet Afary, Medea Benjamin, Noam Chomsky, Ariel Dorfman, Martin Duberman, Carolyn Eisenberg, Daniel Ellsberg, John Feffer, Arun Gupta, Adam Hochschild, Doug Ireland, Kathy Kelly, Assaf Kfoury, Naomi Klein, Jesse Lemisch, Kevin Martin, Scott McLemee, David McReynolds, Charlotte Phillips MD, Katha Pollitt, Danny Postel, Matthew Rothschild, Stephen Shalom, Alice Slater, David Swanson, and Chris Toensing.

If you would like to add your name or make a tax-deductible donation to publicize the following statement, please go to our website www.cpdweb.org -- if for any reason you have difficulty at the website, just send us an email at cpd@igc.org. And please circulate the statement to your colleagues and friends.

Sincerely,

Joanne Landy Tom Harrison
Co-Directors, Campaign for Peace and Democracy

HERE IS THE LETTER:

IRANIAN HUMAN RIGHTS LEADER SHIRIN EBADI IN DANGER

Peace Activists Call on Teheran to Ensure Her Safety

To:

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Ayatollah Shahrudi, Head of the Judiciary
Mohammad Khazaee, Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations

Islamic Republic of Iran

We are writing to protest in the strongest terms the threats that have been mounted against Shirin Ebadi, co-founder of the Defenders of Human Rights Center and the Organization for the Defense of Mine Victims. Ebadi, the 2003 Nobel Peace Laureate, has spoken out vigorously and repeatedly for women's rights and human rights for all in her own country. She has also been a vocal and effective advocate for peace and against military attacks on Iran in international forums.

Ebadi today is in considerable danger. On December 21, 2008, officials prevented a planned celebration of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and forced the closure of the Defenders of Human Rights Center (DHRC), which Ebadi helped found. The Center provides legal defense for victims of human rights abuses in Iran. The group had invited nearly 300 human rights defenders and supporters to the private celebration. A few hours before the start of the program, members of state security forces, and plainclothes agents entered the DHRC building. They filmed the premises, made an inventory, and forced the center's members to leave before putting locks on all entrances.

On December 29 officials identifying themselves as tax inspectors arrived at Ebadi's private law office in Tehran and removed documents and computers, despite her protests that the materials contained protected lawyer-client information.

Ebadi's former secretary has been arrested, and on January 1, 2009 a mob of 150 people gathered outside her home, chanting slogans against her. They tore down the sign to her law office, which is in the same building, and marked the building with graffiti. The police, who have been quick to close down unauthorized peaceful demonstrations, did nothing to stop the vandalism.

In similar cases, Iranian authorities frequently have followed office raids and other harassment with arbitrary arrests and detention, often leading to prosecutions on dubious charges

As peace activists, we have a special concern for Shirin Ebadi. Ebadi has spoken out, as we have, against any U.S. military attack on Iran. In 2005, Ebadi wrote, "American policy toward the Middle East, and Iran in particular, is often couched in the language of promoting human rights. No one would deny the importance of that goal. But for human rights defenders in Iran, the possibility of a foreign military attack on their country represents an utter disaster for their cause." ("The Human Rights Case Against Attacking Iran" by Shirin Ebadi and Hadi Ghaemi, The New York Times, Feb 8, 2005).

We oppose any military attack on Iran by the United States or any other nation. We reject too the hypocrisy of the U.S. government when it protests repression in Iran while turning a blind eye to or actively abetting comparable or worse repression in countries with which it is allied like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Israel in the Occupied Territories. And we condemn as well Washington's double standard in criticizing Iranian repression while itself engaging in torture and undermining civil liberties at home. But that in no way deters us from protesting in the strongest terms the denial of basic democratic rights to the people of Iran. We protest because we believe in these rights, and also because we see social justice activists in Iran and all countries as our natural allies in building a peaceful, democratic world.

We call on you to cease and desist from the threats to Shirin Ebadi, to move immediately to prevent any further harassment, and to ensure Shirin Ebadi's safety and security.

You can sign on here.

Needed: a reality-based peace movement

Shouldn't a proposal to effectively mobilize the American public be--at a minimum--
reality-based? A popular proposal by Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith is being widely circulated on the internet and beyond. Like many statements by very prominent anti-war spokesmen appears to be based on either wishful thinking or propaganda braggadocio or willfulignorance.

"Over 60% of Americans want this war over--yesterday," Brecher and Smith shout.

There is huge difference betwen poll questions which ask whether the war is/was a mistake or do you approve of George Bush's handling of the war and questions which ask whether people favor an immediate withdrawal.

These polls can be found with great ease on the internet. They can be found here http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Here are three polls from early June.

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll

"More specifically, do you think that we should have an immediate and
orderly withdrawal of all troops from Iraq, or not?"

Should 37% Should Not 59%

LA TIMES

"In your opinion, should the United States withdraw troops from Iraq right away, or should the U.S. begin bringing troops home within the next year, or should troops stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to win the war?"

Withdraw right away 25%
Withdraw within a year 43%

USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL

Are you more likely to support a Presidential candidate who
.
"Supports legislation that would cut off funding for the war in Iraq"

More likely 33%
Less Likely 60%

The fact is that only a minority of Americans support the out now position and it is a act of movement-delusion to pretend otherwise. Cute tactics may make small groups of anti-war activists feel warm and fuzzy and make them feel justified in denouncing the sell-outs of the Democratic Party, Move-On, and UFPJ. (To be honest, I suspect that the UFPJ and even DP
activstis are not immune for this wishful thinking syndrome.) But it won't do much to end the war or build a progressive majority.

If the majority are with you then you only have to come up with some magic formula so that the you can shout so loud that the media can't ignore you. But an entirely different approach is needed if only a minority is with you and there is a potential majority which might be organized-- if not to your most preferred position then to something close to it.

____________________________________________________________________

Beecher and Smith Proposal

IRAQ MORATORIUM September 21 and every Third Friday thereafterToday the Iraq Moratorium project steps onto the public stage!Over 60% of Americans want this war over--yesterday. The political processis moving glacially, at best, to make that happen. It's got to stop! We'vegot to stop it!The idea is simple. On September 21 and on every subsequent Third Friday,millions of Americans will break with their
daily routine to take someconcrete step to demand an end to the war and the
return home of thetroops.The hallmark will be the wearing of black ribbons
and armbands, inmourning for all of those who have died in this
senselessadventure--Iraqis, American and other coalition troops, and others.
All ofus who want this war ended can decide what steps we will
take,individually or with others, on September 21. Together, acting where
welive, work and study, we will create a mighty shout so loud that the
mediawon't be able to white it out and the politicians won't be able to
ignoreit.The Iraq Moratorium is not an organization. It was initiated by a
smallgroup of anti-war activists from very diverse backgrounds. We see it as
aproject that will strengthen the work of existing anti-war groups. Evenmore
important, the clear and simple message, the local focus and thevariety of
activities it can encompass will bring into motion greatnumbers who have not
yet taken any action against the war.It is a 21st century project: the reach
of the Internet and the Web willhelp reach tens of millions with this
message. Please help by forwardingthis message widely.To learn more, to
pledge to take part in the Iraq Moratorium, and to getinvolved, please go to
http://iraqmoratorium.org

Anti-war rally in Washington

I didn't watch CSPAN coverage of Saturday's anti-war rally in Washington, but here's an interesting comment by someone who attended.

"Joe and I are heading down to the peace rally in an hour, to take photos, etc. And I'm watching it on C-Span right now, and I'm asking myself - though I'm not surprised - why is some woman from the "US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation" speaking? And why is she speaking, ad naseum, about the "Israeli occupation of Palestine" rather than speaking aboutthe war in Iraq? She gave 10% of her speech to Iraq and spent the rest of the time railing against Israel?

First off, wrong topic.

Second off, way to alienate most Jews in America, a rather influential group of people we could use as allies.

Third off, way to alienate the rest of us who don't hate Israel, don't hate the Palestinians, and don't feel that the problem over there will be solved by simply blaming everyting on Israel - there's more than enough blame to go around. And in any case, this rally has nothing to do with Israel leaving Palestine, so STFU and stay on topic.

I'm sorry, but as many of you know, I tend to have issues with "peace rallies," not because I have issues with peace or rallies, but because I find myself cringing when I see the substance of them, who's attending, the issues they feel compelled to bring up (Mumia, Israel, trans fats, the suffering of amoeba, whatever). Would it kill someone organizing these events to tell the speakers to speak about Iraq or don't speak at all? Would it kill people to try to present their message in a way that appeals to themajority of Americans?..."

A later post from the same blogger was more positive.