No To War in San Francisco

I wanted to comment on the video stream recorded of the Town Hall Committee's Anti-War demonstration at Precita Park (02/02)

I am moved a lot as an organizer to be a part of a movement that is, today, filled with passionate artists and creative activists. It is such a problem to burn out or to be uninspired in such demanding work.
But , like the video displays, Irene and Jason from 8th Wonder, makes this work feel strong. I encourage all artists to come to the frontlines in the name of resistance.

Thank You.

I wanted to comment on the video stream recorded of the Town Hall Committee's Anti-War demonstration at Precita Park (02/02)

I am moved a lot as an organizer to be a part of a movement that is, today, filled with passionate artists and creative activists. It is such a problem to burn out or to be uninspired in such demanding work.
But , like the video displays, Irene and Jason from 8th Wonder, makes this work feel strong. I encourage all artists to come to the frontlines in the name of resistance.

Thank You.

FACT: Israeli military reaction has been one of incomparable restraint. After the brutal lynching of two Israelis in Ramallah, Israel limited its response to bombing one floor of the headquarters of the negligent Ramallah police, the radio station that had been broadcasting incitement to violence, and two targets in Gaza. Israelis gave a 3-hour warning, to allow Palestinians to evacuate; indeed, no one was killed. Similarly, following the recent torching of an ancient synagogue in Jericho, Israel's only response was to bomb a military training school.

On the front lines of this "intifada," Israeli soldiers have orders not to shoot unless they are in direct danger. Israeli soldiers are told never shoot at an ambulance or at women. Unless the Palestinians begin shooting first with live bullets, Israeli soldiers are instructed never to shoot to kill, and then, to aim only at the source of the shooting, never randomly. No other army has such restrained orders.

As the world decries the 100 Palestinian deaths, no one stops to ask how many would be dead if Israeli forces were actually doing what they are accused of -- shooting indiscriminately into crowds with automatic weapons. If that were the case, many thousands of Palestinians would be dead.

But what about Palestinians youth who have been tragically killed in the fighting?

What kind of parent encourages children to go to the front lines to throw stones and firebombs at armed troops?! Palestinians know that Israelis are reluctant to shoot at children; and if a child does wind up getting killed, it makes for excellent anti-Israel propaganda.

Children are taught in school the heroics of dying as a martyr for the Palestinian cause. The Jerusalem Post reported that the Palestinian Authority is encouraging children to participate in clashes by offering their families $300 per injury and $2,000 for anyone killed. How tragic that Palestinians send their children at risk of death and then cynically use this against Israel in the court of world opinion.

But perhaps Israel should not be using force at all to stop the violence?

The BBC recently asked a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council if Arafat truly had the power to stop the mob violence. He replied that it probably could not be done without exerting fatal force on the rioters. Given that reality, how can the world possibly expect Israel to stop the violence without such force?

It is the duty of any government to protect its citizens from violence. Imagine what the response would be if this violence was occurring to any other country. When the British tried to control the last Palestinian intifada, the Arab revolt of 1936-1939, entire villages were burned and more than 3,000 Palestinians were killed.

During "Black September" when Palestinians rioted in Jordan in the 1970s, King Hussein massacred 2,500 Palestinians in 10 days. Likewise, Syrian President Assad slaughtered 20,000 of his own people during civil unrest in Hama, then paved over the dead -- a toll that the Israel intifada would need 100 years to match.

Thursday, George W. Bush gave one of the oddest speeches in two centuries of presidential rhetoric. What made it so very strange was that it contained two starkly contradictory parts.

For convenience, let's call them Speech A and Speech B.

In Speech A, Bush lambasted Yasser Arafat for deploying terror against Israel and informed the Palestinian leader that his predicament today, surrounded by Israeli tanks, "is largely of his own making." By name, the president listed four groups (Al Aqsa Brigades, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad) and accused them not just of opposing the peace process but also of seeking the destruction of Israel.

Bush proceeded to endorse Israeli efforts at self-protection: "America recognizes Israel's right to defend itself from terror." He warmly identified himself as "a committed friend of Israel" and noted his concern with the country's long-term security.

In sum, Speech A condemns Arafat and backs Israel.

In Speech B, the president drew policy implications opposite from what might be expected. Rather than concluding that Arafat's having broken his word and resorted to terrorism renders him unfit for further diplomacy, Bush gave him yet another chance by calling on the Palestinian Authority to stop terrorist activities.

Yet more implausibly, he appealed to "responsible Palestinian leaders [to] show the world that they are truly on the side of peace."

Then, rather than endorse Israeli actions of recent days to root out the terrorist infrastructure on the West Bank as steps entirely in accord with the U.S. war on terrorism, Bush surprisingly called on the Sharon government to halt its incursions into Palestinian-controlled areas, begin to withdraw from cities it recently occupied, cease settlement activity in occupied territories and help to build a politically and economically viable Palestinian state.

In sum, Speech B backs Arafat and condemns Israel. This man is irredeemable, and any diplomacy premised on his behaving in a civilized way is doomed to failure.

Whence comes this illogic? From two mistakes. One is to believe that Arafat can change his ways, ignoring the fact that he entered the terrorism business in 1965 and has never abandoned it. This man is irredeemable, and any diplomacy premised on his behaving in a civilized way is doomed to failure. (Curiously, the U.S. government itself makes no parallel mistake of negotiating with the Taliban's Mullah Omar or Iraq's Saddam Hussein.)

Second, the president seems not to understand the purpose of Palestinian violence against Israel. It is not directed at winning an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza. Had the Palestinians wanted just that, they could have taken it on a silver platter during negotiations at Camp David in July 2000.

Rather, this violence has a much more ambitious set of goals: the destruction of the Jewish state itself. To be sure, when speaking to a Western audience, this point is downplayed or denied, but one has only briefly to eavesdrop on Arabic-language television, radio, mosque sermons, classrooms or cafe discussions to see the wide consensus for eliminating Israel.

In light of this Arab rejectionism, it sounds a bit plaintive and irrelevant when the president expresses a hope that Palestinians will agree to an immediate cease-fire and an immediate resumption of security cooperation with Israel.

Bush's decision to send Secretary of State Colin Powell to the Middle East looks utterly forlorn. Why should Palestinians agree to a cease-fire when they are at war and think they are doing well, as all evidence suggests?

To watch Bush dealing with an increasingly acrimonious Arab-Israeli theater leaves me with two impressions: His larger vision-to support Israel against terrorism-shows a clear understanding of the situation. But his limited understanding of the issues leads him to adopt superficial, even counterproductive policies.

If the U.S. government wants to help clamp down on the current violence, it has one attractive option: encourage Israel to defeat the forces of terrorism as it sees fit and remind the Arab states, as the president has so often done since September, that "you're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

That policy has the virtues of moral clarity, of consistency and of helping to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.

It's also just plain rude.

Make a point or shut the fuck up.