Friday, June 9, 2006
That is the question on the table for the Somerville Divestment Project's members at this coming Sunday's dinner meeting. The question, as related by SDP Coordinator Ron Francis, will be to address the SDP's position on "Attacks on Noncombatants in the Middle East." The proposal on the table takes a "balanced" view [emphasis is mine]:
SDP supports the Geneva conventions and therefore opposes the killing of non-combatants, on principle and in all circumstances. We therefore oppose attacks made by US-supported Israeli military forces on innocent civilians [This is, of course, something that the Israeli military does not do, unlike Hamas. They target terrorists who shield themselves amongst civilians -- itself a war crime. -S]. We also oppose the attacks on non-combatants by Palestinians–even non-combatants who politically support the apartheid regime that oppresses Palestinians.
We also believe, however, that it is hypocritical to use Palestinian attacks on non-combatants as an excuse for supporting the apartheid Israeli government’s racist discrimination against Palestinians, just as it would have been hypocritical in 1831 to use the fact that a slave rebellion in the American South (led by Nat Turner) killed innocent white children as an excuse for supporting slavery.
Under these circumstances how surprising would it be if some of us lashed out violently against Jewish non-combatants? And if we did respond this way, would it be correct for the people who materially support the oppression to condemn us (as "evil" people), while at the same time giving us few if any options. We say, no it would not be correct, no more than a person helping a man rape a woman has any right to condemn the woman, even if in her struggle she attacks an innocent bystander.
We do not support attacks on non-combatants by anyone, including Palestinians. But we do say it is vital for Americans to understand why these attacks take place, and why the notion that Palestinians have "evil" motives is not the explanation.
We are confident that when Americans understand fully the nature of the conflict in Palestine they will agree that the appropriate response is to demand that our government stop supporting the Israeli government. Americans will not want their tax money and their good name to be used to deny Palestinians their basic human rights, in particular their right to return to their homeland from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean Sea and to live there with rights equal to those of Jews.
It will be interesting to hear how the discussion and final vote go.
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: To murder or not to murder?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.solomonia.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-renamedtb.cgi/6342
It is always nice to deal with morons who live on the planet Neptune. Ok, not the strongest way to refute an argument, but this guy is so very wrong.
I have to wonder if it is a lack of education or an intentional distortion that allows him to say that he understands why someone would murder others.
The South Africanization of Israel continues............
I'm glad I don't live in Somerville anymore.
Well, I'm probably in no position to complain... the town I live in (Brookline, MA) just publicly announced its support for the impeachment of the President. (What good they think this will do, I have no idea.)
By all means, let the Somerville town council continue debating, in their fantasies that they play a significant role in determining foreign policy. That ought to keep them safely away from anything important.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
I'm sorry, but not surprised, to hear that about Brookline. Note: The above proposal is being debated by the Somerville Divestment Project, not the City of Somerville. Divestment is off the official table in Somerville for the moment.
The only good Jew is a dead Jew?
If I have this straight, the Somervile (sic) Divestment Project is debating the ethics of a situation where an armed man (Arab combatant) is coming at you and at your children with murderous intent.
If you stand still and do nothing, you and your children will soon be dead, but the Arab murderer will be subject to the disapproval of SDP for having murdered you.
If, however, you pick up a gun and attempt to defend your life and the lives of your children, according to the SDP, the Arab terrorist will be fully justified n murdering you. The SDP will approve of your murder since the minute you, the the victim, picked up a gun in self-defense you "engaged in using physical force." and therefore deserved to be murdered.
Did I get that right? And if I did, then, according to Ron Francis the only good (innocent) Jew is a dead Jew.
I think that's about the size of it.
This is absolutely foul. Only a group intoxicated by its own commitment to "peace" and "social justice" could hurtle so ignorantly down such a rancid path.
How exciting to lay down the ground rules for guerilla warfare from the safe remove of suburban Boston! What a thrill it is to vicariously live out your "freedom fighter" daydreams in the presence of your equally self-satisfied chums, coffee and store bought cookies in hand. What a relief it is to find an outlet for your anti-semitic hate speech under the guise of EU-endorsed "pro-Palestinian" platitudes!
They're not intoxicated with a commitment to peace or any kind of justice. Peace is, in theory, a good thing to be enjoyed by all people. True justice is a good thing. They, on the other hand, endorse a wholly bad thing. If it would just affect them, that would be their prerrogative . . . instead they work dilligently to see that their vision is enforced on all of us.
The falesly named "peace and justice" to which this cohort (and their allies in leadership positions in mainline Christian denominations, and their allies in various unions, and their allies in moveon.org) are committed can best be described as a vision of "a boot stomping on a human face - forever".