Thursday, November 2, 2006
Here's an update on where things stand with regard to the two questions on the Somerville, MA ballot with regard to divestment and "right of return." (see previous posts: Would You Buy What These Guys Are Selling? Somerville Divestment is Back., Somerville Divestment Update -- Green Party is On Board and Speaking of Somerville Divestment...)
The Somerville Journal has endorsed a NO vote on both questions:
Question 5: Support the right of return for all refugees - No
Cloaking the dissolution of the state of Israel in the clothing of human rights is just deceitful. If you want a policy debate, so be it, but let us at least acknowledge that there is more to the problems in the Middle East than can be solved by nonbinding ballot questions.
Question 6: Divest from Israel, those supplying military equipment to Israel - No
Once again, this a more complicated question than suggesting we shouldn't fund military equipment in Israel. On one hand, just like when the divestment of retired city employee pensions was at issue, the retirement boards managing this money are duty-bound to find good investments for its charges. If that is General Electric which makes MRI beds for hospitals as well as electronics that could be used elsewhere, so be it. On the other, this question is a simplification of an issue in the Middle East. Go ahead and have a policy debate, but we fear there is more lurking in this issue than an anti-war stance. Why, for instance, are we not being asked to question investment in any other hot spot?
The Journal also has an article on the issue, here: Ballot has city taking sides, again
A vicious battle is again erupting in Somerville involving a not-so-local issue: the Middle East.
Unlike a lot of the other ballot questions next Tuesday, question 5 - a nonbinding resolution asking the federal government to support the right of all refugees, including Palestinian refugees, to return "home" - will have Somervillians grappling at an issue they’ve seen before.
Two years ago, members of the Somerville Divestment Project tried unsuccessfully to get the city’s retirement board to stop investing in companies that do business with Israel...
...Haber, Brociner and others have accused the Somerville Divestment Project members of being anti-Israel and even of anti-Semitism, something members deny.
"That term sucks," said Bob Cable, a divestment and right-of-return proponent. "Some of our supporters are Jewish. The Jews, Arabs and Christians could live peacefully. I have great respect for Jews as intellectuals, as social justice activists and baseball players. I would actually prefer the Jews in Israel live in the U.S." [Ah, the casual call for ethnic cleansing of the pro-divestment folk...]
Cable touted the support of Neturei Karta, a group of anti-Zionist Orthodox rabbis based in New York. But on the other side, politicians such as Mayor Joe Curtatone have not taken lightly to the divestment group’s initiative.
"They do nothing to promote real dialogue, peace or justice either here in Somerville or in the Middle East," Curtatone said recently. "They represent a wasteful and inappropriate use of the ballot initiative system, and I strongly oppose them."...
The Anti-divestment forces now have their own Web site, here: somervillepeace.org. The group is showing the very important film The Forgotten Refugees at the Somerville Theater tonight, but you can watch the film for free on the web until November 8th. The instructions for doing so are on this page.
Jon Haber has an excellent essay debunking one of the SDP's favorite tactics, out of context quotations, here: Quotes
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Somerville Divestment Update -- Vote NO on 5 and 6 Effort -- Free web stream of The Forgotten Refugees.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.solomonia.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-renamedtb.cgi/6753
I watched the film yesterday at the Somerville Theatre. It was well worth seeing, but there were only four people in the audience. 5 pm on a weekday is not a good time to expect people to watch a movie.)
The presenter did not return to the auditorium after the film was over, so two of us left the theatre somewhat frustrated, with unanswered questions.