"Not Our Place to Dictate..." (was Re: Rutgers Conference...)

[Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@xxxxxxx>]

At 3:04 AM -0500 10/17/03, LouPaulsen wrote:
> For the record, the political line which has been so hotly debated here is
> embodied in point 5 of the Principles of Unity:
>
> "5. As a solidarity movement, it is not our place to dictate the
> strategies or tactics adopted by the Palestinian people in their
> struggle for liberation."

The OSU conference has the same political line.

If the fifth principle of the Principles of Unity is taken literally
by solidarity activists, the principle is an excellent one.  It would
have been good if the old Soviet Union -- which had the power to
dictate the strategies and tactics of liberation movements elsewhere
and did regularly use it, sometime wisely, sometimes disastrously --
had adopted the same principle, too.

The literal meaning of the principle, however, cannot but be
anachronistic and incongruous now, as no Palestinian solidarity
activist group today, unlike the Soviet Union of yore, has any
capacity whatsoever to dictate anything to anyone, much less
Palestinians in the occupied territories.  It's like a beggar in the
street saying, "I'll boycott Mercedes-Benz."

So, the principle is not interpreted literally.  What's the point of
the principle, then?  In some individuals' hands, it functions to
stifle free discussion about what's going on in Palestine and the
solidarity movement.

As soon as I offered a critical analysis of the costs and
consequences of the tactics adopted by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, some
marxmail subscribers suggested that I must be in favor of a two-state
solution; that I will cease organizing against the Israeli occupation
soon; and other non sequiturs and falsehoods.  Those who made such
remarks couldn't have believed that Hamas and Islamic Jihad would
actually change their tactics, just because I or anyone else in North
America for that matter made any remark critical of them.  What
caused the outrage was basically the very fact that I criticized
Hamas and Islamic Jihad, stating that deliberate and indiscriminate
attacks on civilians, especially inside the Green Line, are neither
just nor expedient, thus not in keeping with the standards of
revolutionary conduct in a liberation movement.

The real meaning of the principle in some solidarity activists' minds
is actually that "as a solidarity movement, it is not our place to
critically examine the strategies or tactics adopted by the
Palestinian people in their struggle for liberation, and we will try
out best to browbeat anyone in our ranks (celebrated
Palestinian-American intellectuals excepted) into never making any
critical remarks about any Palestinian faction" -- in effect, a
guarantee that the rank and file of the solidarity movement will
never expand beyond the usual suspects.

Expanding the movement beyond the usual suspects is precisely what we
need now.  One of the practical achievements of New Jersey Solidarity
turns out that "This was the first time ever that a state governor
would actively campaign to reverse divestment and to leverage Zionist
and
rightwing frenzy to announce investing public funds in Israeli bonds.
New Jersey Governor, Jim McGreevy, did just that, by announcing to
the Zionist rally of many thousands that he was the first governor in
New Jersey to invest Public Employees Pension Funds in Israeli bonds"
("Report of the Third North American Conference of the Palestine
Solidarity Movement Rutgers University - New Brunswick, New Jersey,
October 10-12, 2003,"
<http://www.divestmentconference.com/index2.html>).  That's a setback
for the divestment movement and Palestinians.  How would New Jersey
Solidarity go about reversing the new decision to invest Public
Employees Pension Funds in Israeli bonds?  Solidarity activists in
New Jersey need to make an alliance with unionists and retired
persons whose pensions are misused, and, in fact, now is a very good
time to do so, if they can link opposition to investing public
employees' pensions into Israeli bonds to criticisms of inadequate
pensions, of the move to privatize pension fund management, etc., for
instance:

*****   September 26, 2003

N.J. PENSION FUND

A scary report

A report just released by the McGreevey administration should send a
chill through both taxpayers and public employees: The state's
pension-fund investment system is in even worse shape than state
officials have anticipated.

According to the report by Independent Fiduciary Services, the
current pension-investment strategy will fall far short of what is
needed. The remainder will have to be made up by taxpayers and/or
public employees. This, at a time when taxpayers are already on the
hook for more than $1.5 billion over the next five years because the
state's stock-heavy portfolio tanked with the market.

The report wisely recommends diversifying that portfolio. So far, so good.

Now comes the thorny part: The report conveniently backs up the
McGreevey administration's desire to farm out the pension-fund
investment business to private managers.

Currently, New Jersey is one of only two states that manages its
portfolio with public employees and an appointed council. Farming out
that lucrative business to brokerage firms could represent a
cornucopia of "pay to play" political largess in an administration
not shy about fund-raising.

How lucrative is it? Pennsylvania, for example, spends hundreds of
millions of dollars in fees to money managers - more than four times
what New Jersey spends - to administer a smaller pension fund.

The McGreevey adminstration is promising tight restrictions on
campaign contributions from brokerage firms involved with the pension
system. But can we believe a governor who has repeatedly said he
favors legislation ending New Jersey's obscene pay-to-play system -
and yet has been the biggest obstacle to getting such a law passed?
Union leaders are among those who are skeptical, saying the McGreevey
administration will somehow find a way to get contributions from
brokerage firms seeking the lucrative business, restrictions or no
restrictions. Unfortunately, the administration has earned such
cynicism. . . .

<http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/columns/092603INVEST.html>   *****

Such necessary coalition-building is impossible, though, if your
first priority is to exclude folks who disagree with you in any way,
even if they actually agree with you on the political demands of No
US Aid to Israel, Divestment from Israel, and the Right of Return.
--
Yoshie

* Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/>
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
<http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html>,
<http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/>
* Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/>
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/>
* Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio>
* Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.