Olive Tree Democrats

20 Comments Add your own

• 1. saifedean  |  April 18, 2007 at 3:28 am

  We Should support the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation and particularly their call for mobilization for their June demonstration in Washington in support of Palestine.

• 2. Jeanne Capozzoli  |  April 18, 2007 at 4:05 am

  Ask all members to send names of others who are very concerned about the unconditional support of Israel.

• 3. Gene Derig  |  April 18, 2007 at 5:23 am

  Dear Folks,

  Linking up with a group like BlogPac might prove beneficial. Here is their website:

  http://blogpac.org/

  Here is what they say about themselves: “Waging politics online
  Blogpac is about finding and supporting people doing small and innovative progressive political projects to change this country. We think there’s lots of progressive innovation happening on the internet, so that’s where we’re looking”.

  Also, there is a creative group from Vashon Island, Washington (begun by a group of artists)called The Backbone Campaign which may be worth contacting:

  http://www.backbonecampaign.org/

  These organizations are grassroots and innovative, and could be valuable for those reasons in spreading the word.

• 4. Irwin Spiegelman  |  April 18, 2007 at 1:52 pm

  Statement is excellent, but I suggest adding: 1. the need for immediate final status peace talks, thus dropping the conditions ( such as an end to all vioilence against Israel) of the “road map” and “peace process” which have enabled Israeli governments to reject these talks. 2. We might add that Israel, to show its good faith, should begin repatriating settlers and ending the occupation as talks begin.

• 5. Didacus Ramos  |  April 18, 2007 at 3:14 pm

  We should also support groups like Brit Tzedek veShalom in the Jewish Community that calls for honest discussion and positive action toward building peace.

  My own group–Clean Water for Peace, International– a non-profit works to produce “facts on the ground–for peace” providing environmental solutions to daily issues such as water purification, wastewater treatment and reuse, air and land quality, and economic development.

• 6. George Gorayeb  |  April 18, 2007 at 4:11 pm

  This is a log overdue grassroots movement that is likely to gain significant mommentum as more and more people learn about its existence and mission. I fully support your efforts and will welcome the chance to lend my support to the success of your mission. I am confident that there are thousands of other Arab-Americans in the Washington DC area who would support this effort.

• 7. Donna  |  April 18, 2007 at 5:11 pm

  I have seen the difference in just what the average American KNOWS about occupied Palestine, thanks to Pro-PALESTINIAN bloggers, and sites like YOUTUBE that show Real Video of the Oppression and Aggression of the IDF.
  But, even with the internet, there are many Arab-Americans here in the USA who are unaware that anyone is caring about Palestine in this country.
  We have an obligation as citizens of THE U.S.A., to speak out about apartheid and oppression everywhere. but especially in forgotten Palestine, where our ambivilence has worsened the situation to completely unbearable, and unlivable for most Palestinians.

• 8. Sally Bahous Allen  |  April 18, 2007 at 7:11 pm

  Thank you for your work. How can we get the need for Palestinian rights to the US public? On TV, in films, and in books and magazines? The idea that Palestinians have an equal right to a country is missing in the national conscious.

• 9. Dr. Dellmas J. Allen  |  April 18, 2007 at 8:00 pm

  I wish to thank the Olive Tree Democrats for thhis fair and honest treatment of the politics of the Middle East. Until the Arab – Israeli problem is resolved there will be no peace in Iraq or throughout the entire Middle East, including Israael and the Occupied Territorues, We lived in Lebanon for four years during the 1967 war and had hoped that the USA could/would be responsible for a Just and Peaceful Resolution to the 1948 Crisis created by the establishment of a foreign state in the Arab Middle East. Now it is tine for the Olive Tree Democrats to do the job for the Middle East and the entire World. Thank you for your new mission

• 10. clenchner  |  April 18, 2007 at 8:32 pm

  Thanks everyone for the great comments! Does anyone know of any good allies we can connect to within the Democratic Party?

• 11. Michael Benefiel  |  April 19, 2007 at 3:47 pm

  Marylanders for Middle East Peace has been lobbying both MD Senators [Mikulski and Cardin] and MD-8 U.S. Rep. Chris VanHollen on the basis of Churches for Middle East Peace talking points. While the responses have been welcoming, they are not motivated to move forward without hearing from many more people about this issue. An interfaith initiative to build coalitions among all children of the God of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar needs to grow and sustain this effort during the 2008 campaign and beyond.

• 12. Rob  |  April 24, 2007 at 5:14 am

  I think that OTD should support the June 5th Initiative (Two States, Two Peoples, One Peace) rather than the June 10-11 protests by the US Campaign to End the Occupation. The June 10-11 protests do not endorse a two-state solution and call for cutting all aid to Israel, something that no Member of Congress could ever support.

  If this group wants to actually be a player in Democratic politics, it needs to avoid positions and groups that are too extreme, not because we don’t agree with them, but because their policies are too far on the fringes even for the most liberal Dems. There are plenty of orgs with slightly more moderate language (like that found in OTD’s mission statement) that are still significantly to the left of the current discourse and would represent a major shift in the party.

  Check out the June 5th Initiative: http://www.june5thinitiative.org/

• 13. Steve France  |  April 24, 2007 at 3:41 pm

  I think Rob makes a good point. Otherwise, I would suggest finding particular, small-scale actions that we could request of lawmakers and candidates that would advance peacemaking, e.g., that they help with specific visa and travel problems of peacemakers in I/P; or intervene with Israeli officials and/or boosters to urge their help for nonviolent peace initiatives in I/P; or maybe some selected anti-home-demolition actions. Pols like to feel they are making a difference on the ground as opposed to just getting into heated polemics. OTD could offer them ways for them to do this and get invested in peace . . .

• 14. clenchner  |  April 24, 2007 at 6:43 pm

  Rob and Steve, I’m grateful to you for bringing this to my attention. I think we should find a way to be part of this intiative. The US Campaign is a worthwhile endeavor in part because they are talented organizers who are able to reach broad sectors of the peace movement; this does not seem to be true of the June 5th initiative.
  I would be very happy if folks who want to support this would compile information in a useful way. Browsing the website, I could not find a basic listing of details for events in the US; I also got the impression that they do not have one central event in the US. Even more problematic is the absence of an individual based in the US, representing an organization we can have a relationship with.
  Still, it seems to be a good effort, so consider the door open to trying to develop this connection. Who is going to take responsibility for this?

• 15. Hayyim Feldman  |  April 27, 2007 at 12:40 pm

  Regarding Rob’s comment (#11) and Charles’s response (#13):
  Tactical considerations may be adequate if OTD wants only to be a player in the Democratic party. But if it also wants to make a real contribution to peace and justice in I/P, it ought to take a principled stand against views that deny the legitimacy of either Israeli or Palestinian national rights and aspirations, including independent statehood. That may not require that all OTD’s partners endorse two states, but it does mean rejecting those who base their advocacy for some other outcome on a claim that one or the other state is (or would be) inherently objectionable. Not merely because such views are “too extreme,” but because they are odious and wrong.
  The US Campaign/UPJ position of “Palestine, yes; Israel, maybe” is a major reason why those “broad sectors of the peace movement” have achieved not a sliver of influence re I/P nor any meaningful gains toward ending the occupation. I hope OTD doesn’t replicate that self-deluding commitment to “breadth” – any more than it would consider broadening its umbrella to include “Israel, yes; Palestine, maybe” groups like AIPAC.

• 16. Charles  |  April 27, 2007 at 1:31 pm

  Hayyim,

  I haven’t seen an official position from the US Campaign calling for Israel to ‘maybe not exist.’ I was present when UFPJ formally rejected the kinds of positions that will imply something similar. Unlike International ANSWER, Al-Awda and other extremist groups, UFPJ and the US Campaign have been careful not to embrace a position that would exclude supporters of a two state solution. They were under a lot of pressure to do so; it would be counter productive to pretend that our victory over the extremists was actually a loss and walk away from participating.

  On a strategic and tactical note, it is disheartening to note that most of the peace groups we might more enthusiastically support – Americans for Peace Now, Brit Tzedek, the American Task Force on Palestine – these groups have refrained from deciding to be part of the US peace movement. They have not worked to cultivate relationships with the progressive Democrats who support their cause the most. They prefer to play towards the center, instead of following their base. This is the failed strategy of playing it safe in the hope that it pays off in the future.

  I wish that the June 5th events had been organized in a serious way with funding and participation from the more mainstream organizations. But.. they didn’t step up to the plate. They don’t organize rallies, they don’t seek out allies to their left, they don’t find common issues with potential allies. They have as little to show for their efforts as the US Campaign does. Or as much.

  Let the J5 people and those who support them feel ashamed and out organized by their ‘opponents’ to the left who, whatever faults they have, have deeper roots in the progressive activist community. Maybe next year we can attend the ‘big rally’ organized by vocal two-staters. Until then, I’ll stand with Tikkun, JVP and others in choosing to work with the allies I have, as opposed to the allies I wish I had…..

  There’s a version of ’sure you haven’t said or done anything problematic. But you are hanging out with group X, and group X is known to hang out with folks from group Y, and group Y is no good. So until you agree to join my refusal to engage in secondary and tertiary boycotts of folks with whom I have a disagreement, we can’t work together either’ going around. It does us no good at all…. I’m not saying that’s how you think, but I’m sensitive to it.

  And by all means – if I’m making a mistake here, point it out! thanks for chipping in Hayyim, join us for the call!

• 17. Hayyim Feldman  |  April 27, 2007 at 7:02 pm

  Charles, much of your response seems to be responding to what you surmise I must think rather than to what I actually wrote. If you don’t think I’m calling for secondary and tertiary boycotts, why bring it up?

  As it happens, I share your dismay at the insularity of these organizations, though for the Jewish groups I think it results more from their narrow focus on working within the Jewish community than from political centrism. But what does it have to do with our discussion of the breadth and boundaries of OTD’s political umbrella? The weakness of one strategy doesn’t speak to the effectiveness of another.

  Similarly, I share your disappointment with the disorganization and limited strategic vision of the June 5th initiative, which I initially tried to connect with. (I’m not sure, though, why they should feel more shamed by the marginally greater effectiveness of those on what you call their “left” rather than by the far weightier successes of the anti-Palestinian forces.)

  But none of that bears on the specific question at hand. It’s very difficult for you to stand with both Tikkun and JVP, since Tikkun, unlike JVP, is not joining the June 10-12 actions by the U.S. Campaign and UfPJ for precisely the reasons we’re discussing: Those groups (including JVP) have chosen to embrace those who delegitimize the very idea of a Jewish nation-state.

  I’m glad to hear that you do not think the U.S. Campaign holds an “Israel, maybe” viewpoint. That is a far lesser mistake than recognizing that they do, and finding it acceptable. On the question of one state or two states(which, as I wrote, is not my main concern), the U.S. Campaign’s FAQ says this:

  “The US Campaign does not endorse either a one-state or a two-state solution, but rather upholds the Palestinian right to self-determination. We believe the Palestinians must be empowered to exercise this right, and that the international community has a responsibility towards the right of the Palestinian to self-determination.”

  Nowhere does their website affirm Jewish or Israeli self-determination. By me, that constitutes “an official position…calling for Israel to ‘maybe not exist’” and, more importantly, declaring themselves hospitable to those who hold absolutely that it should not exist.

  I find it disturbing, Charles, that in UfPJ’s decision “not to embrace a position that would exclude supporters of a two state solution” you see only a “victory over the extremists.” Consider an analogy: Say there were a large organization within UfPJ that was opposed to the war in Iraq and opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state. Say this group was able to mount a serious campaign within UfPJ for that coalition to adopt a position that would exclude supporters of Palestinian statehood. Say the majority of UfPJ voted down that proposal, but continued to welcome the membership of the group that initiated it. Would that be simply a victory over extremism? Wouldn’t it also be an indication of the sorry state of affairs within UfPJ, that it was open to such bigotry? Rather as if the Democratic Party defeated a southern-state delegation’s effort to exclude the integrated slate of a civil-rights wing of the Party in that state, and called instead for a half-segregated, half-integrated state delegation – as happened to the Georgia Loyalist delegation led by State Rep. Julian Bond in 1968. As a teenager, my joy over the Democratic Party’s refusal to adopt the position of the Klan (paralleled now by ANSWER and Al-Awda) was underwhelming. Please note, it is not these groups’ advocacy of a single state that puts them in the Klan’s camp. What does that is the denial of Jewish national rights that leads them to reject Israeli statehood.

  To welcome such national chauvinism in the name of tolerance and inclusivity would be unworthy of OTD, and would render it unable to help bring about any progressive resolution of the conflict.

• 18. Fikry Salib  |  April 29, 2007 at 1:04 pm

  If the American government is really serious about fighting global terrorism , the first step would be a just settlement for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict . The shameless ( or shameful) support of an apartheid Israel is at the heart of all evil in the region .

• 19. Paul Noursi  |  May 19, 2007 at 1:29 am

  This is a great proposal. I hope we can make a significant positive impact on the political discourse about the Middle East. We need to support political candidates who will support peace, justice, liberty and equal rights as corner stones of our policies in the Middle East.

• 20. Brien Kinkel  |  June 5, 2007 at 12:56 pm

  Under Goals, I am concerned about the phrase “opposition to conservative Democrats when they support Israeli intransigence.” We should not confine our opposition to conservatives. When “liberal” Democrats support Israeli intransigence, as many do, we should apply one, consistent standard.

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed