From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Fri Jul 2 11:37:16 2010 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 11:37:16 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: brief report on second Haifa Conference for the ROR and one democratic state in Israel Palestine Message-ID: Dear CT Greens, Like Hector, I support one democratic state as the only just and enduring solution to the conflict. On that, I represented the IC/GPUS at a "One Democratic State" conference in Haifa at the end of May and am forwarding a brief report I wrote about it to the International Committee (IC). I'll be submitting something more lengthy for Green Pages. Currently, the GPUS platform calls for a reconsideration of the one state solution, which as reaffirmed by the NC's Prop 190 (2005). A current amendment to the Platform to be voted on in the next month was developed in the IC and proposed by the DC Statehood Greens directly supports the creation of one secular democratic state in Israel-Palestine as the homeland for two peoples (while acknowledging the right of self-determination). As I mention in this report, most close observers of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict acknowledge that the "two-state solution" has long been dead, not the least due to Israel's illegal settlement network which is now integrated into Israeli society and economy. For example, as the Jewish-Israeli former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, Meron Benvenisti--who created many of the settlements--recently said to a reporter, "The whole notion of a Palestinian state now, in 2010, is a sham. . .. The entire discourse is wrong. By continuing that discourse you perpetuate the status quo. The struggle for the two-state solution is obsolete." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/28/middle-east-meron-benvenisti-peace-process Indeed, Benvenisti spoke at a "one state" conference I attended in Toronto last year, where he rather frustratingly chastised the crowd with something like this, "Do not speak of 2 states--there is no "2 states." There is just one state and has been for a long time--just with one people ruling over another." In fact, the only Palestinian "state" that Israel would tolerate would be a de-militarized, highly economically dependent collection of (three) Bantustans surrounded by the current apartheid wall-something even the un-elected and quisling Palestinian "peace partner," Mahmoud Abbas, could not accept. Instead, the "status quo" to which Benvenisti refers, is the ersatz peace process which works to give the illusion of progress while allowing Israel to continue to dispossess Palestinians in the occupied territories (e.g., East Jerusalem) as well as in Israel within the 1967 "green line" (e.g., in the Galilee and Negev). I look forward to your comments. Justine (Co-Chair, International Committee) ----- Original Message ----- From: Justine McCabe To: USGP International Committee Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 1:31 PM Subject: brief report on second Haifa Conference for the ROR and one democratic state in Israel Palestine RE: Participation in the Second Haifa Conference For the Return of Palestinian Refugees and For the Establishment of One Democratic Secular State in Historic Palestine Al-Maidan Theater, Haifa, May 28-30, 2010 www.awda1state.org http://www.ror1state.org/awda/index.php?view=article&catid=1:latest-news&id=85:2010-06-11-13-37-03&tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page=&option=com_content&Itemid=50?=en I will write up something more detailed after I return from Oregon and our son's wedding celebration. But I did want to get a word to all on this as people go to the USSF and ANM. This was a very inspiring conference, despite the fact that it was happening just as the Israeli Navy was assaulting civilians of the aid-bearing Mavi Marmara heading toward Gaza in international waters. In sum, a few hundred Jewish and Palestinian Israelis, Palestinians from the Diaspora, and internationals were there to form a working coalition to advocate for the one democratic (secular) solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, seen by most progressive close observers of the conflict as the only just and sustainable one despite the obstacles to it. The Conference was organized by the Abnaa al-Balad ("sons or natives of the land") movement, which has been around for decades, and includes Jewish and Palestinian Israeli activists. Recognizing the apartheid-like reality of Israeli-Palestine, and the increasing calls for the "one democratic solution." the Second Haifa Conference was the latest in a series of "one state" conferences aimed at establishing an international coalition (centered in Haifa) with the goals of 1) return of Palestinian refugees to their homes; 2) repudiation of Zionism; and 3) the establishment of one secular and democratic state in all of historic Palestine for all its residents and the returning refugees. There had been two earlier efforts in Haifa toward these goals: a Right of Return conference in 2004, which I attended representing GPUS; and the First Haifa Conference in 2008 with similar aims as the Second. In the past year there have also been similar conferences in Boston and Toronto, and one is scheduled in Houston in October 22-24, to which I/GP has been asked to do a workshop on. Another "Haifa" conference is planned for Turkey next year so that Palestinians from Arab countries can attend. Most importantly, I want to underscore how much the conference organizers and participants appreciated a representative of a US political party. They were consistently shocked that there even was a party that had a different view about this from the Dems and Republicans. These progressive folks, mostly socialists, were surprised to hear of our support for the right of return and favorable attitude toward the one state solution. They gave me a chance to speak about GPUS and its place in US electoral politics and especially about our support for the right of return for refugees which is increasingly viewed as key to disorganizing the apartheid system in place in Israel-Palestine. I had two media interviews: 1) Werner Pirker Junge Welt, ("Young World") a "far left" daily paper in Berlin, formerly from Eastern Germany. After unification, the paper was revived and this reputedly has become the only anti-Zionist daily paper in Germany . Werner was very interested in GPUS positions on the conflict, saying that we clearly deviated from the German Greens. In fact, we spoke about the affaire Finkelstein and Heinrich Boell's disinviting him to speak. He observed that many German Greens were disenchanted with the party and were defecting. I'll post a copy of the his interview when I receive it. 2) Anglo-German Phil Butland, of the German Left Party. He does an online magazine Marx21 http://marx21.de/content/view/1123/32/.Long (the interview is difficult to hear as we were in a large noisy conference room. NB the crash you hear is not a gun--just chairs falling) Phil also said that many German Greens are defecting to the Left Party, that much of the traditional inability of German society to criticism Israel is being challenged. He said there is conflict about this within both his party and the German Greens. In sum, this progressive international movement toward justice and resolving the conflict--has never been more important and promising than now as we approve new planks on this issue in the 2010 Platform. Again, I urge those attending ANM to try to attend to the Platcom hearings where the "CA proposal" and the "DC proposals" (IC developed) will be discussed. My best regards to you all, Justine -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Sun Jul 4 16:41:10 2010 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2010 16:41:10 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: Greens in Power Shenanigans -- Germany Message-ID: FYI from IC's Carl Arnold. Justine ----- Original Message ----- From: Carl Arnold To: US Greens International Committee ; Region 2 Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2010 11:22 AM Subject: Greens in Power Shenanigans -- Germany FYI -- another quite interesting example of what happens when some level of power is attained. Greens are as susceptible as any other party. We all require constant self-vigilance. Carl http://www.edit1to1.com/ Sign the petition to ban unconventional gas drilling in New York State http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/NY-Statewide-Ban-On-Natural-Gas-Drilling ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Berlin Bulletin: No. 12, 2010 The Painful Birth of a New German President By Victor Grossman July 1, 2010 Berlin It all began with a jolt, and hasn't stopped jolting yet! Presidents in Germany are not too important; they do have a veto right, make occasional speeches, pin on medals and take the oaths of new cabinet ministers, making them a notch or two more useful than Elizabeth II. When President Koehler set a precedent a month ago by resigning after an ill-considered interview admitting far too candidly that German troops were sent abroad for commercial purposes, it came as a surprise but got hardly more attention than rougher problems like winning in a world soccer championships in South Africa. But the sudden decision kept gaining importance like a snowball setting off a minor avalanche. A replacement was needed by June 30th. Chancellor Angela Merkel, the real boss, decided with her retinue (or maybe by herself) on Christian Wulff, 51, the minister president of Lower Saxony. He is handsome, has a nice family, a friendly smile and has made no major blunders in his conservative career as a Christian Democrat. By kicking him upstairs, Merkel would be rid of the last regional party leader who might threaten her leadership. Since her CDU and its coalition partner, the fat cat Free Democrats, even further to the right, had a slim but clear majority in the special electoral college with 1244 parliamentarians and delegates from all states, it all seemed cut and dried. But then the Social Democrats and Greens, now in the opposition, had a great idea. As a rival candidate they nominated Joachim Gauck, 70, a retired East German pastor, once a leader in the victorious uprising of 1989-1990, then for ten years head of the giant government bureau processing material from the GDR State Security forces, or Stasi. Using this material, the bureau decided the fates of countless former GDR citizens who were involved at some time in their lives with the Stasi, either snooping and spying on colleagues or friends (with similarities to the FBI informer network), in harmless encounters as adolescents, in contacts required by even minor managerial jobs and as often motivated by devotion to the GDR as by money or pure nastiness. Some of the evidence was be based on boasting or hearsay but regardless of degree or motivation, thousands were affected by the so-called Gauck Authority. Careers were wrecked, teachers, historians, linguists, surgeons, writers fired. Some took their own lives. Many saw Gauck as a sort of composite Senator Joseph McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover and a symbol of hatred and rejection of everything in the GDR, good or bad. Others, especially in West Germany where the Stasi paint brush had been wielded most broadly, saw Gauck as a democratic hero, rather like Reagan. When the SPD and Greens nominated him, nearly the entire media, above all the Springer tabloid Bild, with its millions of readers, switched on,almost overnight, a giant hype campaign in favor of Gauck, even though it had in the past always supported Merkel and the Free Democrats against Greens and Social Democrats. The plan was doubly masterful. On one hand, it cashed in on growing dissatisfaction with the government and with parties and politicians in general. Gauck was retired and not in any party. The only message the granite-jawed Gauck ever conveyed was repetition of the words Democracy, Freedom and German Unification plus attacks against the horrible GDR which had oppressed him so terribly that in every speech, at every mention, he had to fight back the tears. He never mentioned that in the GDR he had studied theology at public expense, regularly led a congregation and been able to send his children off legally to studies in West Germany, causing unfriendly rumors as to the contacts he must have had with the Stasi to gain this rare privilege. Nor did he say much about political policies. It only gradually leaked out that he favored sending troops to Afghanistan, opposed most social measures, and had always felt closer to the CDU and the Free Democrats. Yet it was the SPD and the Greens who nominated him. As the campaign wound down their motives became clear; this was one more attack on the young party, The Left. It had been winning votes and members from both Social Democrats and Greens; people recalled that it was these two parties, when they were in command, which cut aid to the unemployed, raised the retirement age, increased sales taxes while sharply cutting taxes on corporations and the wealthy, sent German troops to wars in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan and still supported the latter war (though with many Greens defecting). It seemed that they made promises, sounding very leftist whenever they were out of office, but only then. And the Social Democrats had lost disastrously in the September elections. But if they were able to switch the subject back to the old GDR and its crimes, though it had been dead for twenty years, it might still be possible to isolate and delegitimize the Left. Did you ever or do you now support anything the bad GDR did? It was almost like the famous old lawyer's question: Have you stopped beating your wife yet? This kind of campaign was just the job for Gauck! The SPD and Greens nominated Gauck without consulting the Left, knowing full well that many or most of its members could not support him. But they insisted on just that: Support Gauck and curse the GDR in toto or stand condemned as supporters of intolerance, injustice, dictatorship, Stalinism! But the Left chose its own candidate, Lukrezia Jochimsen, 74, a West German, once a foreign correspondent in England, then the head of Hessian Radio-TV, who quit the Social Democrats in protest when they joined in bombing Serbia. Later she joined the Left. During the short campaign, ignored but still harried by the media, she agreed to condemn injustice in the GDR but refused to say the entire GDR was unjust in everything. Nor could she support Gauck, who favored war in Afghanistan and opposed humane measures for the jobless and the low-paid. The decision came on Wednesday, with 1244 electors representing all the country's legislators. To win, a candidate had to gain at least 50 percent - 623 votes - on the first or second ballots. If no-one achieved that, the candidate with a plurality, the most votes, would win on the third ballot. Since Merkel's two government parties had 644 electors they counted on a quick victory, despite hints that some members, disgruntled at the lack of any achievements except side-swiping in nine months in office, or taken by Joachim Gauck's moving rhetoric, his tears or his newly-discovered smile, might desert the Merkel candidate Christian Wulff. And, sure enough, 44 did indeed abstain or even vote the wrong way, giving Wulff only 600 votes, 23 short of the required majority, while Gauck got 499, and Jochimsen from the Left got 126, two more than its number of electors. The Social Democrats and Greens did their sums and angrily denounced the Left; if you had all voted for our freedom-loving Gauck, he would have won on the first ballot with 625 votes. The Left recalled again: despite its offers the others had not consulted with them beforehand on a mutually agreeable candidate but now demanded the Left's votes for a man at least as right-wing as Christian Wulff. The second ballot, a few hours later, did not change much. After earnest pep talks aimed at the anonymous deserters, Wulff had 15 more votes but was still 8 short of the number needed. Gauck lost 9 votes, the Left lost 3. Even had they joined votes this time, it would not have sufficed. Before the third vote, where only a simple plurality was needed, the Left held a long secret caucus meeting. Social Democratic and Green bargainers made a last minute plea for Left support for Gauck. When this was rejected, they denounced the Left in far angrier tones than ever used against Wulff, their alleged opponent, whom they had carefully avoided attacking. The Left and its candidate were snubbed and ignored during the entire campaign. Now suddenly its key role was highlighted; if it could force all its electors to choose Gauck , might it not by some miracle still sway the returns? After the final ballot was postponed for over an hour, a perspiring Gregor Gysi, tie awry, emerged from the Left caucus which he chaired to tell the journalists: Ms. Jochimsen has withdrawn her candidacy. Although we oppose both conservative candidates and recommend abstention, voting is secret and our members are free to make their own decisions. The attacks of the Social Democrats became truly threatening. If the Left refuse to support Gauck it means they have not rejected their own nasty history in the GDR, they have cut themselves off from the body politic, etc., etc. It boiled down to a threat not to join with the Left in coming struggles against oppressive government policies: Who, after all, could work with such awful people? That caucus had decisive internal importance for the Left. If many of its electors were to vote for Gauck after all, while others abstained, this could well cause a deep split in a party which had only recently patched up a fragile unity, an agreement by most leaders to work together. It could in fact wreck the party. Just that, or at least its total isolation, had clearly been the main aim of the entire Gauck campaign, even more than the chance to embarrass Merkel and her government. 1244 electors and observers near and far waited with baited breath for the third, final ballot. The chairman announced the results in his careful, clear manner: Gauck 494 votes; Wulff 625 votes, two more than the now unnecessary absolute majority, and thus a total moral victory. Abstentions 121. Only 3 of the 124 Left electors had broken ranks to vote for Gauck. The party would not be split. Wulff and Gauck both got giant ovations. The Greens and Social Democrats were quick to congratulate Wulff, politely and without rancor. They had never really been against him. But although the Left had withdrawn its candidate and its abstentions had no longer affected the outcome, they could still not refrain from further vitriolic attacks against that party. Their plan, clever as it was, had not really worked out. It had made Gauck popular but had not won him victory. It had embarrassed Merkel and her coalition but would hardly bring it down. It had not split the Left. Had it weakened and isolated it, ending its slow, steady growth in East and West? All four older parties feared the Left not just as a competitor for votes, but because the miserable state of the economy and the harsh measures all four had enacted or endorsed were causing many in the East and some in the West to recall the GDR not as a model, but as a place with no jobless, no homeless, free medical care, child care and education. Maybe something could be learned from it. Alarm bells were sounding! Some people were thinking about both capitalism and socialism! So the old GDR, dead for twenty years, was again disinterred, immolated for the umpteenth time and used as an ultimatum to weaken and split resistance. A few Social Democrats and some Greens rejected this policy, which had not paid off, and were looking for common cause - even with the Left - against the painful economic plans currently being hatched out by Merkel, her vice-chancellor Westerwelle and their whole government, aimed against the jobless, the low-paid, the students and the children. Perhaps Gauck would be forgotten and the battle rejoined. _____________________________________________ Portside aims to provide material of interest to people on the left that will help them to interpret the world and to change it. Submit via email: moderator at portside.org Submit via the Web: portside.org/submit Frequently asked questions: portside.org/faq Subscribe: portside.org/subscribe Unsubscribe: portside.org/unsubscribe Account assistance: portside.org/contact Search the archives: portside.org/archive -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Sun Jul 11 11:38:33 2010 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 11:38:33 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: Please support Prop 471, amended GPUS Platform plank on Israeli-Palestinian conflict Message-ID: Hi CT Greens, FYI. I just sent this onto our CTGP delegates to the NC. I urge your support for Prop 471, GPUS platform amendment on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Thanks, Justine ----- Original Message ----- From: Justine McCabe To: Jeff Russell, GPCT ; Mike DeRosa ; Charlie Pillsbury ; Tim McKee ; Richard Duffee ; GScottDeshefy at deshefyforcongress.org Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 11:36 AM Subject: Please support Prop 471, amended GPUS Platform plank on Israeli-Palestinian conflict Dear GPCT Delegates to the NC, As you know, amendments to the GPUS Platform are now up for discussion. Among them, is an amended plank on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, offered by David Schwartzman/DC Statehood Greens. This is on the NC voting page http://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=471: Prop 471, Foreign Policy: A Real Road to Peace in the Middle East. Discussion is from 7/5-7/18, with voting beginning on 7/19-7/25. I urge you to vote for this amendment. This amendment contains a few specific policy changes from the 2004 GPUS-approved platform. There are two main changes: 1) New paragraph h., to include GPUS endorsement of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, which was approved by the NC in 2005 via Prop 190. This proposal was offered and approved by the NC in response to a 2005 Palestinian civil society call following Israel's failure to adhere to the 2004 decision by International Court of Justice condemning Israel's apartheid wall and seizure of Palestinian land (see: Greens, Calling for Palestinian Rights, Urge Divestment from Israel" http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2005_11_28.shtml) 2) Substitution of 2004's paragraph k.--support for "a U.S. foreign policy that promotes serious reconsideration of the creation of one secular, democratic state for Palestinians and Israelis," WITH Amended paragraph i.-- Endorsement of the "one, secular, democratic state solution": "we view the two-state solution as neither democratic nor viable in the face of international law, material conditions and 'facts on the ground' that now exist in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Given this reality, we support a U.S. foreign policy that promotes the creation of one secular, democratic state for Palestinians and Israelis Here is the language, side by side: 2004 Platform: k. We know that significant international opinion is committed to a two-state solution. Yet, we recognize that the two-state solution may be increasingly unrealistic in the face of economic and social conditions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Given this reality, we would consider support for a U.S. foreign policy that promotes serious reconsideration of the creation of one secular, democratic state for Palestinians and Israelis on the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan as the national home of both peoples, with Jerusalem as its capital. We encourage a new U.S. diplomatic initiative to begin the long process of negotiation, laying the groundwork for such a single-state constitution. 2010 Amendment to that platform plank: i. We recognize that international opinion has been committed to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yet, we view the two-state solution as neither democratic nor viable in the face of international law, material conditions and "facts on the ground" that now exist in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Given this reality, we support a U.S. foreign policy that promotes the creation of one secular, democratic state for Palestinians and Israelis on the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan as the national home of both peoples, with Jerusalem as its capital. We encourage a new U.S. diplomatic initiative to begin the long process of negotiation, laying the groundwork for such a single-state constitution. Other changes: 3) Proposed changes in paragraph d.: Addition of: "and maintains an apartheid-like system in both the Occupied Palestinian Territories and in Israel toward its non-Jewish citizens; and "ends its siege of Gaza and its apartheid-like system both within the Occupied Palestinian Territories and in Israel toward its non-Jewish citizens." 4) 2004 paragraph h., becomes paragraph g., with the addition of: "in Palestine-Israel, especially violations committed during Israel's 2008-2009 invasion of Gaza ("Operation Cast Lead") as documented in the 2009 "UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict" ("The Goldstone Report") authorized by the UN Commission on Human Rights." (For side-by-side comparison of the 2004 language and the proposed/amended language for this entire plank, see http://www.gp.org/committees/platform/comments/?p=544. A brief history of the development of this policy is included below. Again, I urge your support for Prop 471. Thanks, Justine McCabe GPCT delegate to GPUS International and Platform Committees Co-Chair, International Committee, GPUS ================================= BACKGROUND As a US political party, Greens have a particular interest and responsibility for developing a different policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: 1) Our government has an essential role in sustaining the conflict by its enormous financial aid to Israel and political support (at the UN, etc.) for scores of Israeli violations of international law, as well as by its support for the more regressive elements of the Palestinian Authority and its quisling leader, Mahmoud Abbas; 2) US security and regional peace in the Middle East depend on a just resolution of the conflict. US unequivocal support for Israeli human rights violations against the Palestinian people is a main source of antipathy to the US/the West among Muslims/the world's formerly colonized peoples who identify with Palestinians. US support not only decreases US/Western national security, but also contributes to Middle East and international instability. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41982 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/world/14clash.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/65b122b6-e8c0-11dd-a4d0-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1 http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/14/the_petraeus_briefing_biden_s_embarrassment_is_not_the_whole_story Beginning in 2000, GPUS began defining elements of a policy on this conflict, much of it through the International Committee. This has been an organically developed policy, consisting of various proposals to GPUS and party-approved press releases. Adherence to international law and non-violence have been guiding principles. These policy elements were responses to the conflict's recent evolution, including the following significant historical events of the past 10 years: *End of the first, mainly non-violent Palestinian Intifada; *Failure of the Oslo "peace process" during which the Palestinian Authority was created and during which there was a 50% increase in the illegal Jewish settlement population; *Beginning of the more violent second Intifada, including Palestinian and Israeli state terrorism; *Construction of Israel's "apartheid wall" throughout the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the concomitant seizure of Palestinian land, illegal according to a 2004 International Court of Justice ruling; *Israeli redeployment from Gaza and "transfer" of 5000 Jewish settlers to the West Bank; *Democratic election of the Palestinian Hamas government beginning in 2006, rejected by the US and Israel and subsequent US-backed Palestinian civil war between Hamas and Fatah/PLO, resulting in Hamas rule of Gaza, and Fatah/PLO in West Bank; *Israel's-US backed 2006 invasion of Lebanon, destroying much of South Lebanon's infrastructure and deaths of hundreds of civilians; *Ongoing illegal Israeli blockade and siege of Gaza begun in 2007; *Massive three-week, US-supported assault by Israel on Gaza (12/2008-1/2009), resulting in the killing of 1400 Gazans--mostly civilians--and 13 Israelis of whom 3 were civilians; *UN's Richard Goldstone Report condemning the assault as involving war crimes mainly by Israel, and to a much lesser degree, by Hamas; *Israel's US-supported rejection of the report; *Ongoing institutional discrimination in Israel against non-Jewish Israeli citizens (about 28% of the population), including ongoing seizure and "Judaization" of Palestinian areas in Israel (Galilee and Negev); *Increasing international support for the BDS movement and growing recognition by most close observers, including Jewish-Israelis and Palestinians that there is no just, viable "two state" solution, and the call for one, democratic secular state in Israel-Palestine. The following are GPUS foreign policy platform "planks" on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict contained in either the 2004 GPUS Platform or in GPUS-approved press releases, and which are contained in Prop 471: *Support for the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in Israel in 2001. This "right of return" is regarded as the linchpin to any enduring peace in Israel-Palestine. See 2004 IC essay describing the rational for this position and how the one-state solution satisfies this right and that of all the inhabitants of Israel-Palestine. http://www.gp.org/committees/intl/response_on_palestine.html -"Greens Endorse Mass Rally for Palestinian Refugee Rights, April 06, 2001 http://www.gp.org/press/pr_04_06_01.html. -"Kerry is Indistinguishable from Bush on Israel and Palestine." http://www.gp.org/press/pr_04_22_04.html -"GREENS WARN THAT ISRAEL'S GAZA 'DISENGAGEMENT PLAN' WILL NOT BRING PEACE Adherence to international law, including Palestinian refugees' right of return, remains key, say Greens. http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2005_08_16.shtml -"Text of Cynthia McKinney's speech prepared for conference in Damascus on Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the denial of the Right of Return for Palestinians" http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=150 December, 2008 *Support for an international peacekeeping body to protect civilians especially: -"Greens Call for an International Peacekeeping Body to Enforce a Middle East Ceasefire." http://www.gp.org/press/pr_04_03_02.html *Support for non-violent resistance to occupation: -"U.S. Greens Support Peacemakers in Israel and Occupied Palestine." http://www.gp.org/press/pr_04_09_02.html -"Greens See Hope in Palestinian Nonviolent Protests and resistance to Israel's Occupation" http://www.gp.org/press/pr_10_07_02.html -"Greens See Promise in Non-Violent Protest Efforts by Palestinians, Express Support for Hunger Strike by Political Prisoners." http://www.gp.org/press/pr_09_08_04b.html -"Greens Renew Call for Investigation of Rachel Corrie's Death" http://www.gp.org/press/pr_03_15_04.html *Support for Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) against Israel until occupation ends, equality under the law for all in Israel-Palestine -"Greens, Calling for Palestinian Rights, Urge Divestment from Israel" http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2005_11_28.shtml *Opposition to violations of US arms control laws by Israel: -" Slaughter of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians is a punishable war crime; use of U.S. weapons for such purposes violates U.S. laws" http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2006_07_20.shtml *Support for ending military aid to Israel: -"New US military aid to Israel and the Lieberman-Kyle amendment bring the US closer to war with Iran, say Greens" http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2007_10_08.shtml -"Greens urge economic pressure and cutoff of all military aid to Israel as Gaza situation worsens" http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=35 *Support for nuclear disarmament in the Middle East by all, including Israel: -"Us goals in the Middle East must include multilateral disarmament and end US political and military domination over the region, assert Greens* http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=67 June, 2008 *Support for the "one-state" solution" and ending Israeli apartheid: -"Greens call the 60th anniversary of Israel an occasion to affirm international law, enact human rights, and end the illegal occupation of Palestinian Territories": http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=61 May, 2008 -"Greens, Calling for Palestinian Rights, Urge Divestment from Israel" [Prop 190 states: The Green Party of the United States is on record as supporting: 1: 'Palestinian Refugees Inalienable Rights to Return to their homes and to receive material compensation for their losses.' 2: 'Immediate Israeli withdrawal from all lands acquired since 1967 including East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the West Bank.' 3: Jerusalem as a shared city open to people of all faiths, without exclusive claims to national sovereignty or religion. 4: Suspension of all U.S. military and foreign aid to Israel 5: Complete dismantling of the Israeli separation wall 6: Promotion of the concept of one secular, democratic state as the national home of both Israelis and Palestinians' http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2005_11_28.shtml" -"Green Party: Israel-Palestine truce must include end of Israeli occupation and observance of international law or violence is likely to resume; The key to peace: ensuring democracy, equality, and human rights for all in Israel-Palestine" http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=169 January, 2009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Thu Jul 15 18:57:28 2010 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:57:28 -0400 Subject: {news} GP RELEASE: US Green Party condemns assassination of Rwandan Green Party leader Message-ID: GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES http://www.gp.org For Immediate Release: Thursday, July 15, 2010 Contacts: Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, cell 202-904-7614, mclarty at greens.org Starlene Rankin, Media Coordinator, 916-995-3805, starlene at gp.org The Green Party of the United States condemns the assassination of Andr? Kagwa Rwisereka, Vice President of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda . Greens urge Obama to press for an investigation, citing obstruction, violence against opposition parties by the Rwanda government . Green Party Speakers Bureau: Greens available to speak on foreign policy: http://www.gp.org/speakers/speakers-foreign-policy.php WASHINGTON, DC -- The Green Party of the United States expressed shock and sadness over news of the barbaric killing of Andr? Kagwa Rwisereka, Vice President of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda (http://www.rwandagreendemocrats.org). Mr. Rwisereka's body, discovered July 14 after he was missing for several days, showed evidence of murder. US Greens have joined Green Parties around the world in extending their sincere condolences to Mr. Rwisereka's family and community and the Rwandan Green Party. Green Party leaders are calling on the Obama Administration to support a full investigation of this murder and the deeply disturbing allegations that Andr? Kagwa Rwisereka's assassination was politically motivated, tied to the current political leadership of the Rwandan government of President Paul Kagame and his ruling Rwanda Patriotic Front (RFP), which has close ties to the US. The Kagame government has consistently prevented Greens and other opposition parties from freely registering as political parties. "Rwanda is portrayed by the Obama Administration as an 'African success story,'" said Marian Douglas-Ungaro, co-chair of the Green Party's International Committee (http://www.gp.org/committees/intl), member of the Green Party Black Caucus (http://www.gp.org/caucuses/black/index.php) and DC Statehood Green Party, and a veteran international elections monitor. "Yet, this same government stands accused of human rights abuses including crimes against humanity and political repression. Five times it has prevented the Rwanda Democratic Green Party from convening, once violently, thereby bureaucratically blocking them from appearing on the ballot for the upcoming August presidential elections. How is this a beacon of democracy in Africa?" US Greens are preparing a letter to be sent to President Obama urging him to press for a full inquiry into the assassination and for prosecution and punishment of the assassins. See also: "Death Announcement: Rwandan Democratic Green Party Vice President Assassinated" Democratic Green Party of Rwanda press release, July 14, 2010 http://rwandagreendemocrats.org/spip.php?article83 "Rwandan Opposition Leaders and members have been assaulted, arrested and hundreds are still missing" Democratic Green Party of Rwanda press release, June 24, 2010 http://rwandagreendemocrats.org/spip.php?article79 Global Greens statement on the assassination of Rwandan Greens Vice-President Mr. Andr? Kagwa Rwisereka http://www.globalgreens.org/statements/kagwa_rwisereka_assassinated "Greens in the US protest attempts by the government of Rwanda to suppress the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda" Green Party of the United States press release, November 2, 2009 http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=260 "Rwandan opposition parties condemn grenade attacks in Kigali" San Francisco Bay Guardian, February 21, 2010 http://sfbayview.com/2010/rwandan-opposition-parties-condemn-grenade-attacks-in-kigali/ MORE INFORMATION Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org 202-319-7191, 866-41GREEN . Green candidate database and campaign information: http://www.gp.org/elections.shtml . Green Party News Center http://www.gp.org/newscenter.shtml . Green Party Speakers Bureau http://www.gp.org/speakers . Green Party ballot access page http://www.gp.org/2008-elections . Green Party Livestream Channel http://www.livestream.com/greenpartyus Video clips from the Green Party's 2010 Annual National Meeting, Detroit, Michigan, June 24-27 http://www.gp.org http://www.livestream.com/greenpartyus Green Pages: The official publication of record of the Green Party of the United States http://gp.org/greenpages-blog ~ END ~ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Wed Jul 21 11:09:41 2010 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:09:41 -0400 Subject: {news} Jonathan Cook: 'One-state debate explodes myth about the Zionist left" Message-ID: <962510BA68AC428C8925BB31CBA648B4@JUSTINE> Dear all, Obviously the "left" Cook describes here who are opposed to the one state solution are like US liberals. The "left," left among Jewish Israelis (mostly socialists) are anti-Zionist and advocate a genuine democratic secular state with the return of Palestinian refugees. However, even if the right intends a one state which remains a "Jewish" state, with Jews still in control, the demographic reality belies such an outcome long term. Nonetheless, consideration and support for the one state solution are clearly on the rise everywhere, even in Israel. I hope GPUS can clearly affirm that progressive policy in our platform, which is now under discussion on the NC as Prop 471. Justine ====================================== http://mondoweiss.net/2010/07/one-state-debate-explodes-myth-about-the-zionist-left.html#more-22647 One-state debate explodes myth about the Zionist left by JONATHAN COOK on JULY 20, 2010 ? 92 COMMENTS Like 31 Retweet A fascinating debate is entering Israel's political mainstream on a once-taboo subject: the establishment of a single state as a resolution of the conflict, one in which Jews and Palestinians might potentially live as equal citizens. Surprisingly, those advocating such a solution are to be found chiefly on Israel's political right. The debate, which challenges the current orthodoxy of a two-state future, is rapidly exploding traditional conceptions about the Zionist right and left. Most observers -- including a series of US administrations -- have supposed that Israel's peace-makers are to be found exclusively on the Zionist left, with the right dismissed as incorrigible opponents of Palestinian rights. In keeping with this assumption, the US president Barack Obama tried until recently to sideline the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyhau, Israel's rightwing prime minister, and bolster instead Ehud Barak, his defence minister from the left-wing Labour party, and the opposition leader Tzipi Livni, of the centrist Kadima party. But, as the Israeli right often points out, the supposedly "pro-peace" left and centre parties have a long and ignominious record in power of failing to advance Palestinian statehood, including during the Oslo process. The settler population, for example, grew the fastest during the short premiership of Mr Barak a decade ago. What the new one-state debate reveals is that, while some on the right -- and even among the settlers -- are showing that they are now open to the idea of sharing a state with the Palestinians, the left continues to adamantly oppose such an outcome. In a supplement of Israel's liberal Haaretz newspaper last weekend largely dedicated to the issue, Yossi Beilin, a former leader of the ultra-dovish Meretz party and an architect of Oslo, spoke for the Zionist left in calling a one-state solution "nonsense". He added dismissively: "I'm not interested in living in a state that isn't Jewish." The Israeli left still hangs on resolutely to the goal it has espoused since Mr Barak attended the failed Camp David talks in 2000: the annexation to Israel of most of the settlements in the West Bank and all of those in East Jerusalem. The consensus on the left is that the separation wall, Mr Barak's brainchild, will ensure that almost all the half million settlers stay put while an embittered Palestinian population is corralled into a series of ghettoes misleadingly called a Palestinian state. The purpose of this separation, says the left, is to protect Israel's Jewishness from the encroaching Palestinian majority if the territory is not partitioned. The problem with the left's solution has been summed up by Tzipi Hotoveley, a senior Likud legislator who recently declared her support for a single state. "There is a moral failure here [by the left]. . The result is a solution that perpetuates the conflict and turns us from occupiers into perpetrators of massacres, to put it bluntly. It's the left that made us a crueler nation and also put our security at risk." The right is beginning to understand that separation requires not just abandoning dreams of Greater Israel but making Gaza the template for the West Bank. Excluded and besieged, the Palestinians will have to be "pacified" through regular military assaults like the one on Gaza in winter 2008 that brought international opprobrium on Israel's head. Some on the right believe Israel will not survive long causing such outrages. But if the right is rethinking its historic positions, the left is still wedded to its traditional advocacy of ethnic separation and wall-building. It was the pre-state ideologues of Labour Zionism who first argued for segregation under the slogans "Hebrew labour" and "redemption of the land" and then adopted the policy of transfer. It was the Labour founders of the Jewish state who carried out the almost wholesale expulsion of the Palestinians under cover of the 1948 war. For the right, on the other hand, the creation of a "pure" Jewish territory has never been a holy grail. Early on, it resigned itself to sharing the land. The much-misunderstood "iron wall" doctrine of Vladimir Jabotinsky, the Likud's intellectual father, was actually presented as an alternative to Labour Zionism's policies of segregation and expulsion. He expected to live with the Palestinians, but preferred that they be cowed into submission with an iron wall of force. Jabotinsky's successors are grappling with the same dilemmas. Most, like Mr Netanyahu, still believe Israel has time to expand Israeli control by buying the Palestinians off with such scraps as fewer checkpoints and minor economic incentives. But a growing number of Likud leaders are admitting that the Palestinians will not accept this model of apartheid forever. Foremost among them is Moshe Arens, a former defence minister and Likud guru, who wrote recently that the idea of giving citizenship to many Palestinians under occupation "merits serious consideration". Reuven Rivlin, the parliament's speaker, has conceded that "the lesser evil is a single state in which there are equal rights for all citizens". We should not romanticise these Likud converts. They are not speaking of the "state of all its citizens" demanded by Israel's tiny group of Jewish non-Zionists. Most would require that Palestinians accept life in a state dominated by Jews. Arens, for example, wants to exclude the 1.5 million Palestinians of Gaza from citizenship to gerrymander his Jewish-majority state for a few more decades. None seems to be considering including a right of return for the millions of Palestinian refugees. And almost all of them would expect citizenship to be conditional on loyalty, recreating for new Palestinian citizens the same problematic relationship to a Jewish state endured by the current Palestinian minority inside Israel. Nonetheless, the right is showing that it may be more willing to redefine its paradigms than the Zionist left. And in the end it may confound Washington by proving more capable of peace-making than the architects of Oslo. Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net. A version of this article originally appeared in The National (www.thenational.ae), published in Abu Dhabi. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: email.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1030 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: delicious.gif Type: image/gif Size: 873 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: digg.gif Type: image/gif Size: 950 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: furl.gif Type: image/gif Size: 958 bytes Desc: not available URL: From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Mon Jul 26 08:18:39 2010 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 08:18:39 -0400 Subject: {news} Support a yes vote on Prop 471, amended GPUS Platform plank on Israeli-Palestinian conflict Message-ID: <092267DFAD0C4538B3DE365EB200189A@JUSTINE> Dear CT Greens, Please encourage our NC delegates to vote YES on Prop 471 which is now before the GPUS National Committee. As I wrote earlier (see details below) , the main effect of this amendment would be two: 1) Inclusion in the platform of the already established GPUS endorsement of the Boycott, Divestments, Sanctions movement (BDS) against Israel which the NC passed in 2005 (Prop 190) and 2) Inclusion in the platform of clear support for the one democratic secular state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, for which there is growing support among Palestinians and Israeli Jews, as well as progressives everywhere. Thanks, Justine McCabe Co-Chair, International Committee, GPUS ----- Original Message ----- From: Justine McCabe To: Jeff Russell, GPCT ; Mike DeRosa ; Charlie Pillsbury ; Tim McKee ; Richard Duffee ; GScottDeshefy at deshefyforcongress.org Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 11:36 AM Subject: Please support Prop 471, amended GPUS Platform plank on Israeli-Palestinian conflict Dear GPCT Delegates to the NC, As you know, amendments to the GPUS Platform are now up for discussion. Among them, is an amended plank on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, offered by David Schwartzman/DC Statehood Greens. This is on the NC voting page http://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=471: Prop 471, Foreign Policy: A Real Road to Peace in the Middle East. Discussion is from 7/5-7/18, with voting beginning on 7/19-7/25. I urge you to vote for this amendment. This amendment contains a few specific policy changes from the 2004 GPUS-approved platform. There are two main changes: 1) New paragraph h., to include GPUS endorsement of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, which was approved by the NC in 2005 via Prop 190. This proposal was offered and approved by the NC in response to a 2005 Palestinian civil society call following Israel's failure to adhere to the 2004 decision by International Court of Justice condemning Israel's apartheid wall and seizure of Palestinian land (see: Greens, Calling for Palestinian Rights, Urge Divestment from Israel" http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2005_11_28.shtml) 2) Substitution of 2004's paragraph k.--support for "a U.S. foreign policy that promotes serious reconsideration of the creation of one secular, democratic state for Palestinians and Israelis," WITH Amended paragraph i.-- Endorsement of the "one, secular, democratic state solution": "we view the two-state solution as neither democratic nor viable in the face of international law, material conditions and 'facts on the ground' that now exist in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Given this reality, we support a U.S. foreign policy that promotes the creation of one secular, democratic state for Palestinians and Israelis Here is the language, side by side: 2004 Platform: k. We know that significant international opinion is committed to a two-state solution. Yet, we recognize that the two-state solution may be increasingly unrealistic in the face of economic and social conditions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Given this reality, we would consider support for a U.S. foreign policy that promotes serious reconsideration of the creation of one secular, democratic state for Palestinians and Israelis on the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan as the national home of both peoples, with Jerusalem as its capital. We encourage a new U.S. diplomatic initiative to begin the long process of negotiation, laying the groundwork for such a single-state constitution. 2010 Amendment to that platform plank: i. We recognize that international opinion has been committed to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yet, we view the two-state solution as neither democratic nor viable in the face of international law, material conditions and "facts on the ground" that now exist in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Given this reality, we support a U.S. foreign policy that promotes the creation of one secular, democratic state for Palestinians and Israelis on the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan as the national home of both peoples, with Jerusalem as its capital. We encourage a new U.S. diplomatic initiative to begin the long process of negotiation, laying the groundwork for such a single-state constitution. Other changes: 3) Proposed changes in paragraph d.: Addition of: "and maintains an apartheid-like system in both the Occupied Palestinian Territories and in Israel toward its non-Jewish citizens; and "ends its siege of Gaza and its apartheid-like system both within the Occupied Palestinian Territories and in Israel toward its non-Jewish citizens." 4) 2004 paragraph h., becomes paragraph g., with the addition of: "in Palestine-Israel, especially violations committed during Israel's 2008-2009 invasion of Gaza ("Operation Cast Lead") as documented in the 2009 "UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict" ("The Goldstone Report") authorized by the UN Commission on Human Rights." (For side-by-side comparison of the 2004 language and the proposed/amended language for this entire plank, see http://www.gp.org/committees/platform/comments/?p=544. A brief history of the development of this policy is included below. Again, I urge your support for Prop 471. Thanks, Justine McCabe GPCT delegate to GPUS International and Platform Committees Co-Chair, International Committee, GPUS ================================= BACKGROUND As a US political party, Greens have a particular interest and responsibility for developing a different policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: 1) Our government has an essential role in sustaining the conflict by its enormous financial aid to Israel and political support (at the UN, etc.) for scores of Israeli violations of international law, as well as by its support for the more regressive elements of the Palestinian Authority and its quisling leader, Mahmoud Abbas; 2) US security and regional peace in the Middle East depend on a just resolution of the conflict. US unequivocal support for Israeli human rights violations against the Palestinian people is a main source of antipathy to the US/the West among Muslims/the world's formerly colonized peoples who identify with Palestinians. US support not only decreases US/Western national security, but also contributes to Middle East and international instability. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41982 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/world/14clash.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/65b122b6-e8c0-11dd-a4d0-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1 http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/14/the_petraeus_briefing_biden_s_embarrassment_is_not_the_whole_story Beginning in 2000, GPUS began defining elements of a policy on this conflict, much of it through the International Committee. This has been an organically developed policy, consisting of various proposals to GPUS and party-approved press releases. Adherence to international law and non-violence have been guiding principles. These policy elements were responses to the conflict's recent evolution, including the following significant historical events of the past 10 years: *End of the first, mainly non-violent Palestinian Intifada; *Failure of the Oslo "peace process" during which the Palestinian Authority was created and during which there was a 50% increase in the illegal Jewish settlement population; *Beginning of the more violent second Intifada, including Palestinian and Israeli state terrorism; *Construction of Israel's "apartheid wall" throughout the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the concomitant seizure of Palestinian land, illegal according to a 2004 International Court of Justice ruling; *Israeli redeployment from Gaza and "transfer" of 5000 Jewish settlers to the West Bank; *Democratic election of the Palestinian Hamas government beginning in 2006, rejected by the US and Israel and subsequent US-backed Palestinian civil war between Hamas and Fatah/PLO, resulting in Hamas rule of Gaza, and Fatah/PLO in West Bank; *Israel's-US backed 2006 invasion of Lebanon, destroying much of South Lebanon's infrastructure and deaths of hundreds of civilians; *Ongoing illegal Israeli blockade and siege of Gaza begun in 2007; *Massive three-week, US-supported assault by Israel on Gaza (12/2008-1/2009), resulting in the killing of 1400 Gazans--mostly civilians--and 13 Israelis of whom 3 were civilians; *UN's Richard Goldstone Report condemning the assault as involving war crimes mainly by Israel, and to a much lesser degree, by Hamas; *Israel's US-supported rejection of the report; *Ongoing institutional discrimination in Israel against non-Jewish Israeli citizens (about 28% of the population), including ongoing seizure and "Judaization" of Palestinian areas in Israel (Galilee and Negev); *Increasing international support for the BDS movement and growing recognition by most close observers, including Jewish-Israelis and Palestinians that there is no just, viable "two state" solution, and the call for one, democratic secular state in Israel-Palestine. The following are GPUS foreign policy platform "planks" on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict contained in either the 2004 GPUS Platform or in GPUS-approved press releases, and which are contained in Prop 471: *Support for the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in Israel in 2001. This "right of return" is regarded as the linchpin to any enduring peace in Israel-Palestine. See 2004 IC essay describing the rational for this position and how the one-state solution satisfies this right and that of all the inhabitants of Israel-Palestine. http://www.gp.org/committees/intl/response_on_palestine.html -"Greens Endorse Mass Rally for Palestinian Refugee Rights, April 06, 2001 http://www.gp.org/press/pr_04_06_01.html. -"Kerry is Indistinguishable from Bush on Israel and Palestine." http://www.gp.org/press/pr_04_22_04.html -"GREENS WARN THAT ISRAEL'S GAZA 'DISENGAGEMENT PLAN' WILL NOT BRING PEACE Adherence to international law, including Palestinian refugees' right of return, remains key, say Greens. http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2005_08_16.shtml -"Text of Cynthia McKinney's speech prepared for conference in Damascus on Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the denial of the Right of Return for Palestinians" http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=150 December, 2008 *Support for an international peacekeeping body to protect civilians especially: -"Greens Call for an International Peacekeeping Body to Enforce a Middle East Ceasefire." http://www.gp.org/press/pr_04_03_02.html *Support for non-violent resistance to occupation: -"U.S. Greens Support Peacemakers in Israel and Occupied Palestine." http://www.gp.org/press/pr_04_09_02.html -"Greens See Hope in Palestinian Nonviolent Protests and resistance to Israel's Occupation" http://www.gp.org/press/pr_10_07_02.html -"Greens See Promise in Non-Violent Protest Efforts by Palestinians, Express Support for Hunger Strike by Political Prisoners." http://www.gp.org/press/pr_09_08_04b.html -"Greens Renew Call for Investigation of Rachel Corrie's Death" http://www.gp.org/press/pr_03_15_04.html *Support for Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) against Israel until occupation ends, equality under the law for all in Israel-Palestine -"Greens, Calling for Palestinian Rights, Urge Divestment from Israel" http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2005_11_28.shtml *Opposition to violations of US arms control laws by Israel: -" Slaughter of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians is a punishable war crime; use of U.S. weapons for such purposes violates U.S. laws" http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2006_07_20.shtml *Support for ending military aid to Israel: -"New US military aid to Israel and the Lieberman-Kyle amendment bring the US closer to war with Iran, say Greens" http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2007_10_08.shtml -"Greens urge economic pressure and cutoff of all military aid to Israel as Gaza situation worsens" http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=35 *Support for nuclear disarmament in the Middle East by all, including Israel: -"Us goals in the Middle East must include multilateral disarmament and end US political and military domination over the region, assert Greens* http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=67 June, 2008 *Support for the "one-state" solution" and ending Israeli apartheid: -"Greens call the 60th anniversary of Israel an occasion to affirm international law, enact human rights, and end the illegal occupation of Palestinian Territories": http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=61 May, 2008 -"Greens, Calling for Palestinian Rights, Urge Divestment from Israel" [Prop 190 states: The Green Party of the United States is on record as supporting: 1: 'Palestinian Refugees Inalienable Rights to Return to their homes and to receive material compensation for their losses.' 2: 'Immediate Israeli withdrawal from all lands acquired since 1967 including East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the West Bank.' 3: Jerusalem as a shared city open to people of all faiths, without exclusive claims to national sovereignty or religion. 4: Suspension of all U.S. military and foreign aid to Israel 5: Complete dismantling of the Israeli separation wall 6: Promotion of the concept of one secular, democratic state as the national home of both Israelis and Palestinians' http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2005_11_28.shtml" -"Green Party: Israel-Palestine truce must include end of Israeli occupation and observance of international law or violence is likely to resume; The key to peace: ensuring democracy, equality, and human rights for all in Israel-Palestine" http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=169 January, 2009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Mon Jul 26 10:13:08 2010 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:13:08 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: USGP-INT Wikileaks: massive leak of secret files exposes disastrouswar in Afghanistan (The Guardian) Message-ID: <6328A4F93AFE450198F576BC84E9B12D@JUSTINE> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott McLarty" To: Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 12:07 AM Subject: USGP-INT Wikileaks: massive leak of secret files exposes disastrouswar in Afghanistan (The Guardian) > Wikileaks: Massive Leak of Secret Files Exposes Truth of Occupation > > By Nick Davies and David Leigh > The Guardian (UK), July 25, 2010 > http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/series/afghanistan-the-war-logs > http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/07/25-3 > > > A huge cache of secret US military files > (http://www.guardian.co.uk/warlogs) today provides a devastating portrait > of the failing war in Afghanistan, revealing how coalition forces have > killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents, Taliban attacks have > soared and NATO commanders fear neighboring Pakistan and Iran are fueling > the insurgency. > > The disclosures come from more than 90,000 records of incidents and > intelligence reports about the conflict obtained by the whistleblowers' > website Wikileaks (http://wikileaks.org) in one of the biggest leaks in US > military history. The files, which were made available to the Guardian, > the New York Times and the German weekly Der Spiegel, give a blow-by-blow > account of the fighting over the last six years, which has so far cost the > lives of more than 320 British and more than 1,000 US troops. > > Their publication comes amid mounting concern that Barack Obama's "surge" > strategy is failing and as coalition troops hunt for two US naval > personnel captured by the Taliban south of Kabul on Friday. > > The war logs also detail: > > ?How a secret "black" unit of special forces hunts down Taliban leaders > for "kill or capture" without trial. > > ?How the US covered up evidence that the Taliban have acquired deadly > surface-to-air missiles. > > ?How the coalition is increasingly using deadly Reaper drones to hunt and > kill Taliban targets by remote control from a base in Nevada. > > ?How the Taliban have caused growing carnage with a massive escalation of > their roadside bombing campaign, which has killed more than 2,000 > civilians to date. > > In a statement, the White House said the chaotic picture painted by the > logs was the result of "under-resourcing" under Obama's predecessor, > saying: "It is important to note that the time period reflected in the > documents is January 2004 to December 2009." > > The White House also criticized the publication of the files by Wikileaks: > "We strongly condemn the disclosure of classified information by > individuals and organizations, which puts the lives of the US and partner > service members at risk and threatens our national security. Wikileaks > made no effort to contact the US government about these documents, which > may contain information that endanger the lives of Americans, our > partners, and local populations who co-operate with us." > > The logs detail, in sometimes harrowing vignettes, the toll on civilians > exacted by coalition forces: events termed "blue on white" in military > jargon. The logs reveal 144 such incidents. > > Some of these casualties come from the controversial air strikes that have > led to Afghan government protests, but a large number of previously > unknown incidents also appear to be the result of troops shooting unarmed > drivers or motorcyclists out of a determination to protect themselves from > suicide bombers. > > At least 195 civilians are admitted to have been killed and 174 wounded in > total, but this is likely to be an underestimate as many disputed > incidents are omitted from the daily snapshots reported by troops on the > ground and then collated, sometimes erratically, by military intelligence > analysts. > > Bloody errors at civilians' expense, as recorded in the logs, include the > day French troops strafed a bus full of children in 2008, wounding eight. > A US patrol similarly machine-gunned a bus, wounding or killing 15 of its > passengers, and in 2007 Polish troops mortared a village, killing a > wedding party including a pregnant woman, in an apparent revenge attack. > > Questionable shootings of civilians by UK troops also figure. The US > compilers detail an unusual cluster of four British shootings in Kabul in > the space of barely a month, in October/November 2007, culminating in the > death of the son of an Afghan general. Of one shooting, they wrote: > "Investigation controlled by the British. We are not able to get [sic] > complete story." > > A second cluster of similar shootings, all involving Royal Marine > commandos in Helmand province, took place in a six-month period at the end > of 2008, according to the log entries. Asked by the Guardian about these > allegations, the Ministry of Defense said: "We have been unable to > corroborate these claims in the short time available and it would be > inappropriate to speculate on specific cases without further verification > of the alleged actions." > > Rachel Reid, who investigates civilian casualty incidents in Afghanistan > for Human Rights Watch, said: "These files bring to light what's been a > consistent trend by US and NATO forces: the concealment of civilian > casualties. Despite numerous tactical directives ordering transparent > investigations when civilians are killed, there have been incidents I've > investigated in recent months where this is still not happening. > > Accountability is not just something you do when you are caught. It should > be part of the way the US and NATO do business in Afghanistan every time > they kill or harm civilians." The reports, many of which the Guardian is > publishing in full online, present an unvarnished and often compelling > account of the reality of modern war. > > Most of the material, though classified "secret" at the time, is no longer > militarily sensitive. A small amount of information has been withheld from > publication because it might endanger local informants or give away > genuine military secrets. Wikileaks, whose founder, Julian Assange, > obtained the material in circumstances he will not discuss, said it would > redact harmful material before posting the bulk of the data on its > "uncensorable" servers. > > Wikileaks published in April this year a previously suppressed classified > video of US Apache helicopters killing two Reuters cameramen on the > streets of Baghdad, which gained international attention. A 22-year-old > intelligence analyst, Bradley Manning, was arrested in Iraq and charged > with leaking the video, but not with leaking the latest material. The > Pentagon's criminal investigations department continues to try to trace > the leaks and recently unsuccessfully asked Assange, he says, to meet them > outside the US to help them. Assange allowed the Guardian to examine the > logs at our request. No fee was involved and Wikileaks was not involved in > the preparation of the Guardian's articles. From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Mon Jul 26 13:09:17 2010 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:09:17 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: USGP-INT Afghanistan war logs: The story behind the biggest leak inintelligence history (Guardian) Message-ID: <8E5C0919FE8A47D496B74FED5C28083A@JUSTINE> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott McLarty" To: Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 12:51 PM Subject: USGP-INT Afghanistan war logs: The story behind the biggest leak inintelligence history (Guardian) > Afghanistan war logs: Story behind biggest leak in intelligence history > > From US military computers to a cafe in Brussels, how thousands of > classified papers found their way to online activists > > Nick Davies > The Guardian (UK), Sunday 25 July 2010 > http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/wikileaks-war-logs-back-story > > > US authorities have known for weeks that they have suffered a haemorrhage > of secret information on a scale which makes even the leaking of the > Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam war look limited by comparison. > > The Afghan war logs, from which the Guardian reports today, consist of > 92,201 internal records of actions by the US military in Afghanistan > between January 2004 and December 2009 ? threat reports from intelligence > agencies, plans and accounts of coalition operations, descriptions of > enemy attacks and roadside bombs, records of meetings with local > politicians, most of them classified secret. > > The Guardian's source for these is Wikileaks (http://wikileaks.org), the > website which specialises in publishing untraceable material from > whistleblowers, which is simultaneously publishing raw material from the > logs. > > Washington fears it may have lost even more highly sensitive material > including an archive of tens of thousands of cable messages sent by US > embassies around the world, reflecting arms deals, trade talks, secret > meetings and uncensored opinion of other governments. > > Wikileaks' founder, Julian Assange, says that in the last two months they > have received yet another huge batch of "high-quality material" from > military sources and that officers from the Pentagon's criminal > investigations department have asked him to meet them on neutral territory > to help them plug the sequence of leaks. He has not agreed to do so. > > Behind today's revelations lie two distinct stories: first, of the > Pentagon's attempts to trace the leaks with painful results for one young > soldier; and second, a unique collaboration between the Guardian, the New > York Times and Der Spiegel magazine in Germany to sift the huge trove of > data for material of public interest and to distribute globally this > secret record of the world's most powerful nation at war. > > The Pentagon was slow to engage. The evidence they have now collected > suggests it was last November that somebody working in a high-security > facility inside a US military base in Iraq started to copy secret > material. On 18 February Wikileaks posted a single document ? a classified > cable from the US embassy in Reykjavik to Washington, recording the > complaints of Icelandic politicians that they were being bullied by the > British and Dutch over the collapse of the Icesave bank; and the tart > remark of an Icelandic diplomat who described his own president as > "unpredictable". Some Wikileaks workers in Iceland claimed they saw signs > that they were being followed after this disclosure. > > But the Americans evidently were nowhere nearer to discovering the source > when, on 5 April, Assange held a press conference in Washington to reveal > US military video of a group of civilians in Baghdad, including two > Reuters staff, being shot down in the street in 2007 by Apache > helicopters: their crew could be heard crowing about their "good shooting" > before destroying a van which had come to rescue a wounded man and which > turned out to be carrying two children on its front seat. > > It was not until late May that the Pentagon finally closed in on a > suspect, and that was only after a very strange sequence of events. On 21 > May, a Californian computer hacker called Adrian Lamo was contacted by > somebody with the online name Bradass87 who started to swap instant > messages with him. He was immediately extraordinarily open: "hi... how are > you?? im an army intelligence analyst, deployed to eastern bagdad ? if you > had unprecedented access to classified networks, 14 hours a day, 7 days a > week for 8+ months, what would you do?" > > For five days, Bradass87 opened his heart to Lamo. He described how his > job gave him access to two secret networks: the Secret Internet Protocol > Router Network, SIPRNET, which carries US diplomatic and military > intelligence classified "secret"; and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence > Communications System which uses a different security system to carry > similar material classified up to "top secret". He said this had allowed > him to see "incredible things, awful things ? that belong in the public > domain and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC ? > almost criminal political backdealings ? the non-PR version of world > events and crises." > > Bradass87 suggested that "someone I know intimately" had been downloading > and compressing and encrypting all this data and uploading it to someone > he identified as Julian Assange. At times, he claimed he himself had > leaked the material, suggesting that he had taken in blank CDs, labelled > as Lady Gaga's music, slotted them into his high-security laptop and > lip-synched to nonexistent music to cover his downloading: "i want people > to see the truth," he said. > > He dwelled on the abundance of the disclosure: "its open diplomacy ? its > Climategate with a global scope and breathtaking depth ? its beautiful and > horrifying ? It's public data, it belongs in the public domain." At one > point, Bradass87 caught himself and said: "i can't believe what im > confessing to you." It was too late. Unknown to him, two days into their > exchange, on 23 May, Lamo had contacted the US military. On 25 May he met > officers from the Pentagon's criminal investigations department in a > Starbucks and gave them a printout of Bradass87's online chat. > > On 26 May, at US Forward Operating Base Hammer, 25 miles outside Baghdad, > a 22-year-old intelligence analyst named Bradley Manning was arrested, > shipped across the border to Kuwait and locked up in a military prison. > > News of the arrest leaked out slowly, primarily through Wired News, whose > senior editor, Kevin Poulsen, is a friend of Lamo's and who published > edited extracts from Bradass87's chatlogs. Pressure started to build on > Assange: the Pentagon said formally that it would like to find him; Daniel > Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, said he thought Assange could be > in some physical danger; Ellsberg and two other former whistleblowers > warned that US agencies would "do all possible to make an example" of the > Wikileaks founder. Assange cancelled a planned trip to Las Vegas and went > to ground. > > After several days trying to make contact through intermediaries, the > Guardian finally caught up with Assange in a caf? in Brussels where he had > surfaced to speak at the European parliament. > > Assange volunteered that Wikileaks was in possession of several million > files, which amounted to an untold history of American government activity > around the world, disclosing numerous important and controversial > activities. They were putting the finishing touches to an accessible > version of the data which they were preparing to post immediately on the > internet in order to pre-empt any attempt to censor it. > > But he also feared that the significance of the logs and some of the > important stories buried in them might be missed if they were simply > dumped raw on to the web. Instead he agreed that a small team of > specialist reporters from the Guardian could have access to the logs for a > few weeks before Wikileaks published, to decode them and establish what > they revealed about the conduct of the war. > > To reduce the risk of gagging by the authorities, the database would also > be made available to the New York Times and the German weekly, Der Spiegel > which, along with the Guardian, would publish simultaneously in three > different jurisdictions. Under the arrangement, Assange would have no > influence on the stories we wrote, but would have a voice in the timing of > publication. > > He would place the first tranche of data in encrypted form on a secret > website and the Guardian would access it with a user name and password > constructed from the commercial logo on the cafe's napkin. > > Today's stories are based on that batch of logs. Wikileaks has > simultaneously published much of the raw data. It says it has been careful > to weed out material which could jeopardise human sources. > > Since the release of the Apache helicopter video, there has been some > evidence of low-level attempts to smear Wikileaks. Online stories accuse > Assange of spending Wikileaks money on expensive hotels (at a follow-up > meeting in Stockholm, he slept on an office floor); of selling data to > mainstream media (the subject of money was never mentioned); or charging > for media interviews (also never mentioned). > > Earlier this year, Wikileaks published a US military document which > disclosed a plan to "destroy the centre of gravity" of Wikileaks by > attacking its trustworthiness. > > Meanwhile, somewhere in Kuwait, Manning has been charged under US miitary > law with improperly downloading and releasing information, including the > Icelandic cable and the video of Apache helicopters shooting civilians in > Baghdad. He faces trial by court martial with the promise of a heavy jail > sentence. > > Ellsberg has described Manning as "a new hero of mine". In his online > chat, Bradass87 looked into the future: "god knows what happens now ? > hopefully, worldwide discussion, debates and reforms. if not ? we're > doomed." > > > > > _______________________________________________ > usgp-int mailing list > usgp-int at gp-us.org > http://forum.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/usgp-int > From efficacy at msn.com Fri Jul 30 19:27:19 2010 From: efficacy at msn.com (Clifford Thornton) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:27:19 -0400 Subject: {news} DRUG WAR'S COLLATERAL DAMAGE Message-ID: This is for all candidates running for office. Anyone and I mean anyone that does not understand I will educate to the max. And this is for education to all. All over the world cannabis is the illegal drug of choice except China where heroin is number one. Newshawk: http://www.novembercoalition.org Pubdate: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 Source: Los Angeles Times (CA) Page: A15 Copyright: 2010 Los Angeles Times Contact: http://mapinc.org/url/bc7El3Yo Website: http://www.latimes.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/248 Author: Evan Wood Note: Evan Wood, a physician and associate professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia, directs the Urban Health Research Initiative at the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. Cited: 18th International AIDS Conference http://www.aids2010.org/ Referenced: The Vienna Declaration http://www.viennadeclaration.com/ DRUG WAR'S COLLATERAL DAMAGE Governments Need to Acknowledge the Link Between HIV Epidemic and Anti-Drug Policies. Last week, thousands of scientists, physicians and activists fighting the HIV and AIDS pandemic around the world gathered in Vienna to discuss the latest breakthroughs - and frustrations. There were reports on several landmark studies describing the crucial role that treatments can play in reducing the infectiousness of HIV-positive individuals. And there was encouraging news from Africa, where a study found that an intra-vaginal anti-viral gel could reduce the risk of HIV infection among women who used it by 40%. But there was also sobering news at the 18th International AIDS Conference, including stark evidence of how the HIV epidemic is raging unchecked among some populations of illicit drug users. Vienna was selected to host the biannual meeting of HIV experts because it is the gateway to one of the world's most rapidly growing HIV epidemics: that among heroin users in Eastern Europe. Outside sub-Saharan Africa, about 1 in 3 new HIV infections stems from injecting illegal drugs, and in some parts of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, 70% of those who inject illicit drugs are infected with the virus. Get the best in Southern California opinion journalism delivered to your inbox with our Opinion L.A. newsletter. Sign up A) In response to these alarming statistics, this year's conference endorsed as its official statement the Vienna Declaration, a document I helped draft to draw widespread attention to how the U.S.-led war on drugs has played a central role in driving the HIV epidemic around the world. Writing in the medical journal the Lancet, where the Vienna Declaration was also published, Michel Sidibe, the executive director of the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and other prominent scientific leaders stated the situation succinctly: "The war on drugs has failed." Criminalizing drug abuse drives addicts deeper underground and into the kinds of unsafe practices such as needle-sharing that spread infection. We have seen clearly that countries with the most draconian drug laws also have the highest rates of HIV infection among users. In Russia, for example, where 1 in 100 adults is now estimated to be HIV-infected, a fierce drug war has outlawed basic harm reduction tools, such as methadone maintenance treatment. Methadone is on the World Health Organization's list of essential medicines, but Russian physicians cannot even openly discuss the need to prescribe the treatment without fear of reprisals. The mass incarceration of drug users is particularly alarming, given the spread of HIV in prisons. A Pew Trusts analysis of U.S. Department of Justice data noted that 1 in 9 African American males aged 20 to 34 is in prison, many of them as a result of drug law enforcement. Given the link between prisons and HIV, it is not surprising that in places such as Washington more than 80% of HIV cases identified between 2001 and 2006 were among African Americans. Beyond HIV and AIDS, the declaration also notes that the war on drugs is ineffective. "National and international drug surveillance systems have demonstrated a general pattern of falling drug prices and increasing drug purity - despite massive investments in drug law enforcement." In just a few short weeks since being made public, the Vienna Declaration has been endorsed by more than 13,600 individuals, including five Nobel laureates and various other global leaders in science, medicine and public health. There also have been signs that the world may be heading toward more reasoned drug policies. Just before the Vienna conference, the Obama administration announced overdue and welcome steps to help fight the HIV epidemic among drug users. Most important, given the strong support for syringe exchange programs from the U.S. Institute of Medicine and WHO, the administration has reversed a longtime ban on funding clean syringe programs. But there is still much that needs to be done. The Vienna Declaration calls for governments to "implement and evaluate a science-based public health approach to address the individual and community harms stemming from illicit drug use." Not surprisingly, considering that strident special-interest groups have long misled U.S. voters into believing that the drug war is an essential crime-reduction tool, most government delegations at AIDS 2010, including the U.S. government delegation, remained largely silent on the Vienna Declaration. Decades of worldwide drug-related violence have made clear that drug prohibition enriches organized crime and causes bloodshed. But the devastating public health consequences of the drug war have been less recognized, and government acknowledgement of the link between the war on drugs and the HIV epidemic is urgently needed. The next International AIDS Conference will be in Washington in 2012. Before that meeting, governments around the world will be asked to state a formal position regarding the declaration. In the meantime, the declaration also asks for several noncontroversial steps, including that governments "undertake a transparent review of the effectiveness of current drug policies." Given the international public health emergency presented by HIV among drug users and the estimated $2.5 trillion in tax dollars wasted on the drug war over the last 40 years, the U.S. should move forward with this simple call. Drug war video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd_3HowvKlA Efficacy PO Box 1234 860 657 8438 Hartford, CT 06143 efficacy at msn.com www.Efficacy-online.org "THE DRUG WAR IS MEANT TO BE WAGED NOT WON" Working to end race and class drug war injustice, Efficacy is a non profit 501 (c) 3 organization founded in 1997. Your gifts and donations are tax deductible -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: