Arbor Update

The “Ann Arbor News” mentions boycotters’ concern, about Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. The “News” ran a photo, showing a Palestinian woman among the ruins of her flattened house. Any readers who deplored ethnic cleansing by Milosevic are probably equally unhappy with the ethnic cleansing which has befallen Palestine.

Seriously?

They should boycott American made goods as well, then. Get even with those American farmers for their megalomaniacal leaders’ misdeeds over the past 200-odd years. Of course, then they can buy virtually nothing from anywhere but Canada. Except they continue to oppress the Quebecoise. Oops.

Maybe we need to start our own island nation where liberals can grow their own food free from the influence of international markets.

Unconfirmed rumor alert: I had heard somewhere that there was a group organizing a counter-boycott – if the PFC voted to boycott Israeli products, this group proposed boycotting the PFC. If anybody has a reputable source for this, could you provide a link for me?

I haven’t heard of the counter-boycott group, but their idea is the first thing that crossed my mind as I read this story. Whatever their numbers are they can count on two more (there’s more than one PFC’er in this household).

Ripping apart the Food Co-op over a lousy jar of cous cous.

Brilliant.

Could be worse, Todd. We could stop patronizing places that removed wings from their menu…

Ouch. Kick me when I’m down. I loved those things. Free-range and tasty. Two problems, though. It was damn near impossible to get them consistently, especially in the fall, and 1 out 6 (yep, we counted) had zero meat, so we’d get complaints.

Lotsa new stuff to replace it (no cous cous or Axis & Allies, though).

First the local Green Party and now the food Co-op. I wonder how many things have to be ripped apart for a particular person to be happy?

Was this started by the same group that protests Jewish services on Saturdays and that was protesting Hillers a few years ago? (It is because of them that I STARTED shopping at Hillers :) )

And what the heck? Leopolds stopped carrying the wings?!?!?!?!?! Boycott!! JUST KIDDING (I love the place)!! :) :)

Another Palestinian baby has died. Amy Goodman’s “Democracy Now” reports the following…
...

At one of the 450 roadblocks and checkpoints, which Israel controls across Palestine, an ailing one-year old Palestinian boy died, while waiting several hours at the Erez crossing.
The child, Ibrahim Abu Nahel, was being taken by his father for treatment for a heart condition. They were forced to wait despite holding a medical permit.

If this happened to an Ann Arbor schoolchild, visiting Palestine, would you be more open to the idea of a human rights boycott against Israel?

TeacherPatti: Yup, same group, same goal: endless war in the Middle East.

I think it is quite refreshing that County officials take an interest in international human rights matters. For Washtenaw County Clerk Kestenbaum’s information, human rights boycotts are a very normal thing at Co-ops. For example, just this summer, another Food Co-op has joined an international boycott of Coca-Cola products. This was due to Coke’s suspected human rights violations and contamination of ecosystems, according to The Food Co-op’s press release. That cost the Co-op $80,000, but the Co-op gladly made the decision. Here is more information on that very recent boycott, for the County Clerk to reference, should he feel moved to further comment on the merits of human rights boycotts:
www.ptleader.com

Larry, that’s the most apparently thoughtless comment I’ve ever seen from you. What’s behind it?

It was a brief comment, but hardly thoughtless. Steve, you do me a disservice if you imagine that I haven’t thought a lot about this problem.

Neither Israel or Palestine is going away, so it really comes down to two choices.

Do you want (a) a negotiated two-state solution (with a viable Palestinian state in pre-1967 borders), or (b) more decades of war and bloodshed?

The boycott advocates aren’t interested in the two-state solution.

I have no doubt you’ve thought about the problem, Larry. It was the comment that raised the question. Saying that someone’s goal is endless war is quite different from saying that they’re not interested in a particular approach to achieving peace. The former seems thoughtless (i.e., based on feelings/emotions), the latter seems more thoughtful/reasonable.

How about a two-state solution with the post-1967 borders? How about a Palestinian nation and leadership more concerned with developing their economy and infrastructure than destroying their neighbor? Why doesn’t Palestine have jobs for their people and hospitals of their own to treat the sick? Why is Israel the only nation in the world pressured to provide jobs, medical treatment, and instant access across its borders to a group of foreign nationals who have self-declared their intentions to destroy them?

...SHOP AT HILLERS!

No, Steve, the two-state solution is not just “a particular approach to achieving peace,” it’s pretty much it. There is no realistic hope for peace in our lifetime any other way.

Blaine and friends want to see Israel go away; Zionist hardliners want to see Palestine go away. Those goals are, in fact, a recipe for decades of war and probably genocide. They want conquest, not peace.

Instead of supporting the extremists, let’s support reconciliation and negotiations.

But no one called anti-Apartheid campaigners extremists. They boycotted a white-ruled state. That state went away. Nobody got hurt. If the Co-op pulls Israeli couscous from its shelves, they’re simply following the old anti-apartheid example. Why not?

#17 & 20 Larry—very well said! And obviously well thought out.

I don’t know if anyone else went to the food co-op yesterday, but I did. I took my 62 year old mother, who already doesn’t understand “the Ann Arbor people”. I thought she was going to have a heart attack…I had to take her in the cafe door so she didn’t have to walk through the protestors….

A pretty ordinary human rights boycott should not be the cause of a heart attack. Human rights for Palestinians: who is honestly going to get a heart attack over that?

There are few parallels between the anti-Vietnam war peace movement, which was successfuly largely because it rejected a strategy of solidarity with Vietnam but rather demanded peace based upon negotiations, and the current boycott Israel movements, which are really misguided Palestinian solidarity movements, not peace movements. There are also few parallels between the South African and Nicaraguan solidarity movements and the kind of self-styled champions of Palestine who protest outside my snynagogue, Beth Israel, organize divestment campaigns or those who make a huge case out of boycotting a few Israeli goods.

I’ve found that many if not most of those who are suddenly just soooo angry at Israel have little or no background in the previous peace and solidarity movements, but boy are they angry at Israel! It makes me wonder about the psychosocial sources of that anger and its relationship to anti-Semitic impulses. I can think of specific people I know who never lifted a finger during the Vietnam war or South African struggles who I was surprised to see signing one-side ads condemning Israel but not saying a thing about Palestinian terrorism, and it makes me wonder. Also, I’ve found that many of the activists in these new anti-Israel movements are what I call “Israel specialists.” For them it is protest Israel all the time, with not an ounce of energy for other social movements. That also makes me wonder, and I have advised a couple of them to take up other causes if they really want to join the progressive movement.

I work actively, as a Jew, for Middle Eastern peace, but think that the progressive stand at this point is to demand US support for a negotiated settlement and for international pressure for a resumption of the peace process.

To organize solidarity at this point, whether with Israel (by reflexively supporting every single call to support Israel) or with Palestine (by pushing boycotts and divestment and such), just gives hope to the extremists on both side who still hope they can avoid a peaceful settlement. The best way to support Israel’s right to exist (which is increasingly denied by some of these so-called “peace” activists) and to support a viable Palestinian state and a just overall settlement to to demand compromise and demand US firm support for a settlement.

Supporters of these misguided solidarity campaigns point to South Africa – a world historical revolutionary democratic victory in the struggle against racism and imperialism – as a precedent.

But that is because they fail to see that the Palestinian statehood struggle is not a simple morally righteous movement, like that of the South Africans. The fact is that while the ANC successfully fought a policy of racialism and succeeded in winning in part due to that (see the new book Shades of Difference: Mac Maharaj and the Struggle for South Africa), on the part of both the Israelis and the Palestinians, there has arisen almost no uncompromised, nonracist and nonchauvinist organizational form or movement amongst Israelis or Palestinians. This conflict is more akin to Northern Ireland and the aforementioned Bosnia than South Africa. There has been hatred and evil on both sides and very little truly revolutionary democratic content, in my view.

During the Kosovo conflict, I organized the Coalition to Stop the Humanity, which demanded a stop both to ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians and an end to the NATO bombing of Belgrade, but we didn’t necessarily oppose (and took no position on) the UN authorized NATO action to prevent further bloodshed. Stop the Inhumanity, a resolution like that, one which demanded peace, is called upon even by Food Coop boards in this day and age. But to take a one-sided solidarity action under presure from misguided activists would be a huge mistake. It would tear apart the Food coop.

- Michael A. Dover

One-sided solidarity with the United Farm Workers was a good idea. One-sided solidarity with Nelson Mandela was a pretty good idea. One-sided solidarity with Palestinians, the ones who are just barely surviving under occupation, well, that is also a pretty good idea.

Why don’t you just carry both Israeli and Palestinian jars of couscous with a nice sign behind the jars that reads “Dumbest. Issue. Ever.”

The sad thing is, I’m completely serious.

That is sad, Todd, because it trivializes immense suffering.

I think that many of us are sad about the whole issue because we feel powerless to reduce the suffering and to move those involved toward peace. Regardless of what efforts are made locally to ask us (“pressure”, Michael? I don’t think so—who has such power?) as either co-op members, or supporters of Israel, or whatever, to do something, we can individually choose to not provoke (through ridicule, for example), instigate, or otherwise perpetuate anger and hatred.

Peace starts with forgiveness and an attempt at understanding. Let’s start it here. (Please don’t interpret that as advocating a particular vote on the referendum.)

I’m trivializing immense suffering? Steve, with all due respect, it’s a bunch of full grown adults wasting their time on a jar of hummus that trivializes the situation in the Middle East. If you don’t see that, well, I don’t know what to tell you.

Here’s a metaphor for you. Here’s what these protesters are doing. Pretend they want to stop global warming. Instead of contacting their Congressperson, or a specific factory, or the EPA to share their views…..they show up at a Junior High School Science Fair to shout down a kid who has made a model factory that pollutes.

Is it legal to yell at the kid, and tell him that his model factory is making the world a worse place to live? Sure. If the papers pick up the story of them picketing the kid’s model, do they show symbolic disdain for those who pollute? Sure.

But when it comes down to it, isn’t it better to send the picketers to the people who, I don’t know, actually have, you know, direct dealings with polluting factories?

I hope your answer is yes. And I hope that you see that a bunch of people who protest some poor Junior High School kid are a bunch of bullies who could care less about what effects their picketing will have on the poor kid.

Get the metaphor?

Oh, and Steve, I fail to see how having both Israeli and Palestinian products isn’t a fair compromise for Co-Op members who happen to think that both of those peoples can live together in peace.

If the two countries (someday, hopefully, I’m with Larry) can’t live together on a stupid store shelf, how in the hell do you expect them to do it in real life?

If the protesters can’t live with having both Palestinians and Israelis represented at the Co-Op, then their motives are laid bare….as Larry pointed out. Seems to me that those who want peace would be behind my idea 100%.

I think Linda Diane Feldt is a sincere and decent person but her letter and Murph’s comment are a bit misleading. Relating how “swastikas have come to front doors of the co-op,” Linda Diane invokes the famous dictum of Pastor Niemoller but, despite unfounded hyperbole to the contrary, no one in Ann Arbor is coming for the communists, socialists, trade unionists, or Jews.

Moreover, the man displaying the swastika—an acquaintance of mine—is himself a Jew, who lost family members under the Nazis during WWII but he is not part of B.I.G., the Green Party, or any other local peace organization I aware of. I would not myself display the swastika but his use of it, even if ill-advised, is not indefensible as more than one holocaust survivor (and the IDF) has noted parallels between Israeli and Nazi behavior.

Murph writes, “Feldt also discusses the tone of discourse presented to the Board.” But it is inaccurate and unfair to imply that the incident described in the blog post Murph links to is representative of the “discourse presented to the Board.” Linda Diane identifies one individual—“a pretty angry member”—as the culprit. I happen to know that this is the same Jewish man who carries the swastika and he is not a part of B.I.G., which has decried both of these behaviors Furthermore, I attended the regular August Board meeting and nothing like this happened then. Linda Wotring, Anne Remley, and most of the others who make up the core of B.I.G. are calm and courteous and have treated the Board with respect.

It may be mostly symbolic but it is potent symbolism and there is nothing trivial about the PFC boycotting Israeli goods. No one knows that better than the Zionists who have mobilized to oppose it. You can read the letter and “viewpoint” from them in the current issue of the PFC newsletter. If it really was trivial then Zionists and the AA News would simply ignore it.

The boycott of white-ruled South Africa was in support of a movement committed to non-violence. The same cannot be said in this case.

First off, I have a huge problem with the boycott, and it shows the total ignorance of those who support such action. – Many palestinian goods are labeled ‘made is isreal’ and then shipped out via israeli ports. – Many jobs in palestine are in Israel
So, by boycotting Israeli goods, you may likely effect the palestinian economy. But, this is typical of the (what I call) anti-isreal movement here in the ann arbor area. They are detrimental to thier own cause. By constantly agrivating peole, including people who may otherwise have come to support thier cause, they make moderates turned off by the issues at hand. Even this website here has basically gone out of its way to avoid this subject to avoid the comments that get posted.

As todd and others have pointed out, it is bad stradegy for thier cause.

Second, thanks Michael D, for a interesting post. I’m really sorry about what you have to deal with on saturday mornings. I wonder if any PFC people who didn’t oppose it will change their mind now that they have to face the same kind of stupidity.

Larry:

For your information, the ANC was never committed to nonviolence, though there were significant parts of the movement committed to nonviolence. The ANC used violent and nonviolent methods up until the release of Nelson Mandela. I am a Jew and part of the BIG campaign. I support the right of Israel to exist. I do oppose the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, just as I opposed the right of South Africe to exist as a white ruled apartheid state. I deplore violence on either side, but I do not believe that violence committed as resistance to oppression is the same as violence committed to further oppression. If you do then will you please decry the violence committed by some women to fight off their rapist in the same terms as you decry the violence of the rapist? Would you have decried the violence of the slave revolts in our history in the same terms as you would have decried the violence of the slave holders?

Justice demands that we fight oppression. I do not believe that I would use violence to oppose oppression, but I have never been subject to the same amount of daily systematic violence as the Palestinians. The boycott is one nonviolent way for me to oppose the occupation of Palestine by Israel

It is a bit risky to enter into this sort of truncated one dimensional discussion, but apparently I must.

As we move through September, when this vote takes place, I believe that the most important thing is to provide accurate information and address all of the concerns of our members, and as much as possible correct the inaccurate information that has also been circulated. Full statements and explanations of the voting and viewpoints on the boycott are on the Co-op website http://www.peoplesfood.coop (go to news and events). There are also e-mail links to contact board members – (look under ownership). Board members – all volunteers – have collectively spent months now working on providing information on this issue. I know this one topic has taken about 100 hours of my volunteer time in the last three months.

A few pieces of information might help to understand what is happening at the Co-op. First, that this issue was initiated by Co-op members. Not the board of directors. It is one of the wonderful and challenging things about being a Co-op. Second, that it came about at a time that the Co-op was undergoing significant change and transformation – 5 of the 7 board members are new to the board, and we have a new General Manager, an event that is rare for the Co-op.

The referendum is being facilitated by people who were not part of the initiation or negotiation on the front end. It has been awkward. Members have tended to link all of the pro boycott activity together, and one of the purposes of the article I wrote for the newsletter was to help make that distinction. Yet the people involved in the offensive use of swastikas were involved with the initiation of the boycott. They just aren’t any more. But they are still actively promoting a yes vote on the referendum. Of course people make the link.

There is so much more to say about the swastikas and how they have been used in this campaign, and the effect on our membership and shoppers. I hope that can be something many people will speak out about. It starts by letting people know what is happening.

Most important is the overall response of our Co-op members to the referendum. The staff has been hearing from people as shoppers encounter people wanting to talk about the boycott as they enter the store. Since May I’ve heard from now well over 100 Co-op members concerning the boycott. Just to give you some context, past presidents have gotten one or two e-mails or calls a year. Even in our volatile times in the early 80s one or two comments from members in a week was seen as a huge response.

Nearly all of those responses have been opposed to the boycott. And many have been very angry - at the board, at the various personalities and groups involved, at me, and more. Just the few comments on this blog echo some of the conversation that has been part of the feedback the board has received. The opinions from our members about how to achieve Middle East peace have been all over the board. That's important to keep in mind. Our membership includes many who are pursuing a variety of solutions - the proposed boycott is just one.

Through this all I hope people appreciate that The People's Food Co-op has now been around for over 35 years, supporting local farmers, providing healthy food, supporting local causes, and we now have about 6,000 member owners. They will determine if this boycott will be approved.

Sol,

you said;
“I support the right of Israel to exist. I do oppose the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state”

In that, you show your not even part of the real conversation. Your advocating a position that represents a minority of the people involved, and when I say minority, I’ll bet way less then 1% of the population of Israel or Palestine. While its great that you know what limited existance you are willing to give to Israel (existing without being a jewish state), they do not want that. Your position sets up endless conflict rather then working toward a solution.

Sol,

That sounds like a wonderful thing, doesn’t it? A single state where everybody would live together and get along in an Arab/Jewish democracy.

But neither side is fighting for that. Getting them to live side by side in separate states is going to be hard enough. Keeping them together in one state, without one group oppressing and driving out the other, would require a regime more totalitarian than Tito’s Yugoslavia. And who would play the role of Tito?

I hate suicide bombings, and I also hate the occupation — that’s why I support the two-state solution. Your vision does not offer a realistic way to end either kind of violence.

It is true that negotiations, between an almost-dead Palestine, and the land-hungry Israeli military colossus, could achieve what Israel would call “peace”.

That “peace” would resemble the “peace” achieved by the U.S. Army at Wounded Knee, in 1890. It would see malnourished natives packed off to reservations, their family and civilization crushed beyond recognition.

Let us remember who is being occupied in Palestine. The survivors of so many hundreds of Palestinian villages, with their own embroideries and histories. The same people who are now running out of food and water, bottled up between hundreds of Israeli military checkpoints. Their families have fled as far as Ann Arbor.

If you are a “realist”, you will remind us that the occupier (Israel) has one of the largest military machines on the planet, and enough nuclear weaponry to end all life on the planet.

Does that reality mean the only “realistic” thing is for us to turn our backs, until the Israeli military achieves something which it will call “peace”?

Is any human rights boycott, then, “unrealistic”, when the occupier is really powerful and will win anyway? South Africa used to look really powerful, too. Were we “unrealistic” to boycott it, until Mandela was free?

OWB likes to lie and/or mislead people with false information, or just makes up the stuff he/she types

they said
“(Israel) has one of the largest military machines on the planet”

Isarel’s army is 29th on the wikipedia list, behind Saudi Arabia (25), Syria (16), Egypt (11)(who aslo gets tons of cash from us), Turkey(9), Iran(8), Pakistan(7). Biggest is China, then USA, India,Russia, N Korea, S Korea.
(nuimbers based on size of active army in troops)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_size_of_armed_forces

“The Israeli Air Force is considered the strongest air force in the Middle East, and one of the best and most sophisticated in the world.” * Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Air_Force

“Israel is currently believed to possess 70 to 400 nuclear warheads with the ability to deliver them by air, missile, and submarine.” * Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_nuclear_program

That would make Israel the third or fourth-largest nuclear weapons power on Earth, if indeed they do possess 400 muclear weapons.

I do hope you are not trying to hint that enormous Israeli military power is in danger of being wiped out by a human rights boycott at the People’s Food Co-op.

18th largest airforce by number of craft (from my original wiki link).

Also, when you make logical “if then” statements, you should start with the if part, afterwards comes the then part

So, to restate what you said
IF israel has nuclear weapons (they may not, could be a bluff to keep the enemy at bay) and IF the most extreme estimates are used as the proper numbers THEN Israel is the third or fourth largest nuclear power in the world.

Ok, so, not only have you continued to mis-lead, I now ask this question,

what is your point about them being a nuclear power?? The west bank and gaza are way to close for them to use any kind of nuclear weapon. But you sure make things scary when you say that. You fear monger, rather then learn to understand the other side, at the same time alienating people who my by sympathetic to palestinians.

I thank everyone here for that calm discussion of human rights boycotts.

.1.
Are these boycotts appropriate? Of course.

.2.
Does the Israeli military make it well-nigh impossible for several million Palestinians to budge, from one village to the next? Of course.

.3.
Does the Israeli military keep over one million Palestinians under a kind of medieval siege? Absolutely. (http://uruknet.info/?p=m35203&s1=h1)

.4.
Such sieges have caused a good deal of malnutrition, blood disorders, power outages, sewer outages, medical crises, and trauma, especially in Gaza, have they not? Certainly. (BBC: “Isolated Gaza a jail for its people”, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6939223.stm )

.Q.E.D.:
Given those widely known facts, it should not arouse any great passion, to call for a simple boycott, at a little Co-op, like other boycotts before it, to express a little human sympathy with an occupied population in Palestine.
.
Thank you again for your personal courtesy.

Linda Diane Feldt wrote: “Yet the people involved in the offensive use of swastikas were involved with the initiation of the boycott.”

Two qualifies as plural, i.e. “people”, but in my experience only the Jewish man has been displaying the swastika and I go to the co-op several times a week. It’s certainly conceivable though that his wife has been involved in displaying the swastika, too.

LDF wrote: “They just aren’t any more.”

Yes, that’s right, they aren’t part of B.I.G. any more because they chose to display the swastika against the wishes of the rest of the group and because they have a track record of being unable to work in any group for long.

LDF wrote: “But they are still actively promoting a yes vote on the referendum. Of course people make the link.”

It helps “people make the link” that certain people want to misrepresent his/their use of the swastika and then tar all of the boycott supporters with that same brush of misrepresentation. I’m talking about misrepresentations like dishonestly invoking Pastor Niemoller, as if someone was coming “for the Jews.”

LDF wrote: “There is so much more to say about the swastikas.” True, but here is one thing to say: It is not intrinsically “anti-Semitic” for a Jew or anyone else to display the swastika because he thinks that Zionists and the Zionist state resemble the Nazis in their actions and ideology. Personally, I think it is stupid to use the swastika to make this point but the point is valid and it is not “anti-Semitic.”

I hope that 6 million Palestinians do not have to die, to show that their occupation is sufficiently cruel to merit a boycott against their tormentors. 6 million U.S. farmworkers did not die, and yet, their treatment was sufficiently unfair to merit a boycott, by this very Co-op. The Co-op was right to vote for that boycott.

Murph wrote: “I had heard somewhere that there was a group organizing a counter-boycott – if the PFC voted to boycott Israeli products, this group proposed boycotting the PFC.”

That wouldn’t surprise me. That’s what happened when Rainbow Grocery, a San Francisco worker cooperative, implemented a partial boycottof Israeli goods. It’s just a lie to pretend that such boycotts are trivial or don’t matter. Zionists fight these things like mad dogs.

You can watch a 2006 video of Rainbow Grocery boycott supporters at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7B65eCHE74

Here are some other recent articles about the Rainbow Grocery boycott effort:
http://www.sfpower.org/newswire/healthconsum14.php
http://www.sfbayview.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=146
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2007/01/1733624.php

According to this article, Israel is backed by an “army of cyber-soldiers” who track websites and chatrooms and threads such as this so that they can place Israel-supportive messages whenever they detect what they believe to be anti-Israel bias.

I’m personally issuing a citation against post 38 for introducing an ad hominem into the discussion, which up to that point was proceeding quite civilly, despite the highly charged nature of the topic, and the polarity of the opposing viewpoints. But no, I don’t think 38’s author was one of the aforementioned “cyber-soldiers” unless it was one that was so clever so as to use the anonymous handle of a frequent participant on this site.

I’m shocked, shocked I tell you that a fine politician like Larry Kestenbaum would peddle lies and distortions. In responding to TeacherPatti, LK indicates that the PFC boycott is the work of Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends (JWPF). It would be fine if this were true but it is not. The PFC boycott was initiated by an ad hoc group that includes both vigil supporters and opponents but JWPF has never taken any formal position on the PFC boycott and the effort is not in any sense an undertaking of JWPF.

LK also writes “The boycott advocates aren’t interested in the two-state solution.” In fact, the 171 Palestinian NGOs that called for the boycott pointedly refused to take a position on one-state vs. two-state (see www.bds-palestine.net ). Likewise, BIG has taken no position on the matter and it is not mentioned in the referendum language. It is noteworthy that in their statement in the PFC newsletter, BIG members claim, “Israel, like all nations, has security concerns.”

FWIW, JWPF has also pointedly refused to to take a position on one-state vs. two-state. JWPF, BIG, and the Palestinian NGOs stand for justice and solidarity with the victims of Zionism, not a predetermined solution. In any case, a two-state solution is exactly what the leaders of apartheid South Africa wanted; hence, the creation of black homelands or bantustans. There are many parallels between Zionism—Jewish apartheid rule in Palestine—and the ideology of white apartheid rule in South Africa.

OWSider wrote: “First the local Green Party and now the food Co-op.”

The local Greens, known as the Huron Valley Greens, were largely inactive before the recent influx of Palestinian solidarity activists and it remains a group committed to “grassroots democracy” one of our ten key values. Also, three of the four current local officers were active in the Green movement well before the PFC boycott or the JWPF vigils. Only one Green—not an officer—has been active in BIG. As I explained elsewhere, BIG is an ad hoc group that was formed without the input of any other local Palestinian solidarity groups. Zionist conspiracy theorists like to claim that we’re all part of a tiny cabal bent on global domination but the truth is more mundane.

The Huron Valley Greens did endorse the PFC boycott in March (see http://hvgreens.org/blog/ ) but have not promoted their endorsement until recently due to concerns about BIG and its proposed language. The HV Greens boycott endorsement is completely consistent with the national Green Party’s 2005 resolution endorsing boycotts against Israel. This resolution was affirmed by the Michigan Green Party in 2006.

Two excerpts from an op-ed by Professor Ilan Pappe of Haifa University. This was published by the British newspaper The Guardian in 2005:

“I appeal to you today to be part of a historical movement and moment that may bring an end to more than a century of colonisation, occupation and dispossession of Palestinians. I appeal to you as an Israeli Jew, who for years wished, and looked, for other ways to bring an end to the evil perpetrated against the Palestinians in the occupied territories, inside Israel and in the refugee camps. I devoted all my adult life, with others, creating a substantial peace movement inside Israel , in which, so we hoped, academia will play a leading role. But after 37 years of endless brutal and callous oppression of the people of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and after 57 years of colonisation and dispossession of the Palestinians as a whole, I think this hope is unrealistic and other means have to be looked at to end a conflict that endangers peace in the world at large.

“As I learned from my own case, outside pressure is effective in a country where people want to be regarded as part of the civilized world, but their government, with their explicit and implicit help, pursues policies which violate every known human and civil right. Neither the UN, nor the US and European governments, and societies, have sent a message to Israel that these policies are unacceptable and have to be stopped. It is up to the civil societies, through organisations like yours, to send messages to Israeli academics, businessmen, artists, hi-tech industrialists and every other section in that society, that there is a price tag attached to such policies.”

Source: http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1464206,00.html

AAG writes that I “peddle lies and distortions”, because I haven’t been sufficiently attentive to the fine distinctions among various pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel advocacy groups, none of which I named.

Having accused me of lying about this or that group which is or isn’t partially or fully supporting the boycott, he or she goes on to say “It would be fine if it were true.”

Obviously I was mistaken in saying it was “the same” group of people as those who picket the synagogue. Perhaps it would have been more accurate (based on AAG’s response) to say “an overlapping group” of people.

The two-state solution is not some scheme dreamed up by Larry Kestenbaum. It’s the answer which has been blindingly obvious to pretty much everybody for years now. The longer it takes to arrive, the more bloodshed and oppression there will be.

The concept of the boycott is not to induce negotiation and reconciliation. It is to take a stand that Israel is a pariah state that should go away. It is to justify war, not to promote peace.

The nub of the matter, for me, is not the Middle East — it’s our food co-op.

I have been a member of the co-op for a number of years; in the past I was active in the East Lansing Food Co-op and the Cass Corridor Food Co-op in Detroit.

One of the great things about the co-op is the diversity among its members. We have Christians and Jews and Muslims working and shopping side by side. That unity is threatened by this boycott.

Here’s a thought experiment: let’s say someone proposed that the co-op boycott goods from China.

Now, there are plenty of reasons to call for such a boycott. The Chinese government is a brutal totalitarian regime which has murdered tens of millions. Their factories run on slave labor. China invaded Tibet and practically wiped out its unique culture.

Ann Arbor has a large Chinese community, one of the largest in the Midwest. How do you think they would feel about the PFC becoming the only store in town that boycotts Chinese goods?

Probably a few of them would say, sure, we don’t like the Chinese government either. But I’m guessing that most of them, even if they didn’t support Beijing’s policies, would feel less welcome at PFC, and they’d stay away.

A similar dynamic applies with the Ann Arbor Jewish community. No, there won’t be any organized counter-boycott. A few Jews are even supporting the boycott of Israeli goods. But the great majority, I think, would feel less welcome.

In other words, this boycott would drive a wedge between the co-op and the Jewish community. I don’t want to see that happen.

“The local Greens, known as the Huron Valley Greens, were largely inactive before the recent influx of Palestinian solidarity activists and it remains a group committed to “grassroots democracy” one of our ten key values.”

I have a question, then. If the Ann Arbor Green party means what it says….that it is “committed to grassroots democracy as one of our ten key values”....does that mean that you’ll call for an end to the protest if the very democratic Food Co-Op holds a democratic vote on whether or not to carry the offending couscous?

In other words, will you honor their democracy, and respect that they heard your views and voted on them?

Larry, I didn’t see anything in Sol’s post about favoring a one-state ‘solution’. Did I miss it, or are you perhaps reading something into his comments?

Todd, I think I misinterpreted your “Dumbest. Issue. Ever.” comment. You were apparently referring to the boycott as the issue, not the larger issue of the occupation.

I hope your answer is yes. And I hope that you see that a bunch of people who protest some poor Junior High School kid are a bunch of bullies who could care less about what effects their picketing will have on the poor kid.

Get the metaphor?

I get it but I don’t see it as applicable in this case. In the referendum proponents I see a group of adults bringing an issue to their peers, not ganging up on a (adolescent) individual. I also fail to see protesters (there’s a difference between protesting and picketing, btw) as bullies. (If anyone is doing any bullying, that makes them a bully, which has nothing to do with which ‘side’ they’re on.) I also believe that boycotts and the call for them serve a number of valuable intermediate purposes short of the stated goal, including raising awareness and fostering discussion.

Oh, and Steve, I fail to see how having both Israeli and Palestinian products isn’t a fair compromise for Co-Op members who happen to think that both of those peoples can live together in peace.

I hadn’t commented on that, but since you’re directing it to me… I don’t think the call for the boycott is intended to benefit co-op members.

If the two countries (someday, hopefully, I’m with Larry) can’t live together on a stupid store shelf, how in the hell do you expect them to do it in real life?

I’m sorry our conversation is going this way, but I don’t know how to take this as a serious comment. Oversimplification isn’t helpful. Also, you ‘sound’ angry. I don’t think that’s helpful either.

If the protesters can’t live with having both Palestinians and Israelis represented at the Co-Op, then their motives are laid bare….as Larry pointed out. Seems to me that those who want peace would be behind my idea 100%.

I suggest that you ask some of the boycott supporters what their thoughts are. I thought Sol made some clear, reasonable comments—maybe he would respond. Unconfirmed assumptions seem to play a big role in this issue. My opinion is that playing gotcha around people’s motivations is a distraction, and your idea would do nothing to reduce the suffering Palestinians experience from the occupation. Would the proposed boycott do any better? I really don’t know, but as I noted, there are other benefits of calling for one. So I wouldn’t expect a boycott supporter to find much value in that alternative.

I think , LK has made the most coherent,and rational argument for voting against the proposed boycott. AnnArborGreen wants us to believe that the BIG group and Synagogue -harassers group dontwork together, but if you were to compare membership, you will see plenty of overlap, actually, probably more than that.

Steve, if I sound angry, my mistake. What I am is amazed that you can’t see this “boycott” for what it is. It’s a small group vying for attention. Do you honestly think that, of all people, the NPR-listening members of the Food Co-Op in Ann Arbor, Michigan are somehow unaware of the problems in the Middle East?

If these people are really, honestly concerned for the welfare of Palestinians, I can give them a list of dozens of entities in Michigan that their voices should be directed toward. Their Federal Reps, Manufacturers of weapons, parts for weapons, military transports, trajectory software, etc. etc.

Come on, the list could go into the thousands if you think about it. But where is the focus of their ire? A liberal, non-profit grocery store the seeks to get healthy food to its members. Yeah, that makes a ton of sense. Come on, Steve. The Food Co-Op in Ann Arbor is public enemy #1 to the Palestinians? That doesn’t even pass the laugh test. It’s absurd on its face. To say that there are bigger fish to fry is the world’s biggest understatement.

Now if these people (or at least one faction) are indeed serious about what they say, and they respect “grass roots democracy”, then the Co-Op should hold a vote as to what to do, and then the issue should be shelved. Pun fully intended.

If they don’t, then you’ll know that they don’t respect the Food Co-Op, and are interested in agitation for the sake of agitation. That’s lame, and you know it. For crying out loud, this isn’t some faceless corporation.

And you don’t see how my suggestions of carrying Palestinian products would help the Palestinians? Don’t they need to eat? Don’t they have businesses? Don’t they need trade? Buy their stuff. That helps. Establish a committee, and search out Palestinian wares. Support their peaceful activities.

Then put it next to the Israeli goods. I’m dead serious. I’d rather the Israeli people make money on couscous than military-related hand outs. And as JAV pointed out, how do we know that Palestinians didn’t have a hand in crafting the couscous?

My apologies for my tone, Steve, but it really bothers me to think that this has turned an Ann Arbor institution upside down when there are better paths to take.

Dear Todd and others,

More than 170 Palestinian organizations made an appeal to the world in July of 2005 to boycott Israel, divest from Israel and to sanction Israel. Clearly, the members of these organizations felt that risking what ever financial losses Palestinians living in Palestinian lands – whether occupied by Zionists in 1948 or 1967 – was worth sending a message to Israel that the whole world is watching and that Israel should not be exempt from honoring basic human rights.

The ANC made a call for boycotts against South Africa and the same unprincipled and patronizing excuse was made to refuse to honor their boycott as well – the claim was that Blacks would be hurt more by the boycott than the better off whites.

Greens urge all people of conscience to honor the call of these Palestinian organizations representing Palestinians in the lands occupied in 1967, those living in lands occupied in 1948, as well as those who are not allowed to return to their lands and homeland, the 4 – 6 million Palestinian refugees living in the diaspora.

The Green Party values grassroots democracy and decentralization, so while it is consistent with Green values for Green locals to take their own positions in their communities, supporting the PFC boycott referendum is consistent with not only Green Party of Michigan and USGP positions, but also with Green parties in other countries, such as the UK.
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/3024

Those who want to see true peace in Palestine must know that true peace can only be founded on justice. The three demands of the 2005 Palestinian call are reasonable enough: – end the military occupation in the lands occupied since 1967 – equal rights for all in the lands occupied in 1948 – right to return for Palestinian refugees.

The Huron Valley Greens support the PFC boycott referndum out of a sense of responsibility to work for peace and justice for all in the region.

Sincerely,
Aimee Smith
Co-chair Huron Valley Greens

The food co-op is not the target of the boycott movement. The point of boycotting Israel produce is to promote awareness and discussion regarding the occupation, and to shame those who profit from ill-gotten gains, made through stealing land and water from a displaced people. The boycott is symbolic and is not intended to offset the billions of dollars Israel receives from the United States. The fact that Israel is internally divided regarding the occupation could bode well for the boycott achieving its purpose. Many will be troubled at being made aware that their government’s actions have turned some of their friends in the world against them.

Impugning sinister ulterior motives to the boycott movement is a smokescreen.

“The concept of the boycott is not to induce negotiation and reconciliation. It is to take a stand that Israel is a pariah state that should go away. It is to justify war, not to promote peace.”—Post#49

To boycott is to justify war, Larry? Your language is usually a bit more reserved than that. Not so Fox News-ish. Did the newly available Karl Rove just land a job at the Polygon?

Larry Kestenbaum writes: “Having accused me of lying …” No, Larry, I said you were peddling lies. Whether those lies are your own or someone else’s I did not speculate but lies they are and they have been flying around town for weeks—read the co-op newsletter, for example. TeacherPatti asked, “Was this started by the same group that protests Jewish services on Saturdays …?” Without missing a beat, LK responded: “Yup, same group, same goal: endless war in the Middle East.”

LK writes: “The concept of the boycott is not to induce negotiation and reconciliation. It is to take a stand that Israel is a pariah state that should go away. It is to justify war, not to promote peace.” Not only is our esteemed County Clerk sloppy with his facts, he also apparently thinks he possesses special powers to discern the hidden motives of others. Contrary to what they might say, Larry knows the truth and speaks it.

I, personally, would support a boycott of Chinese goods by the co-op if it was as widely supported by the Chinese people as the Israeli boycott is supported by the Palestinian people. And if the call was framed as a nonviolent movement for human rights, as the Palestinian call is. If some Chinese people living in Ann Arbor were offended by that then that would sad but no reason to ignore the call of Chinese people in China.

LK is also a prognosticator: “No, there won’t be any organized counter-boycott.” We’ll see. I predict that if the boycott referendum passes the co-op values of many in the Jewish community will go right out the window and they won’t rest until they’ve overturned the boycott or wrecked the co-op or both

todd writes: “... does that mean that you’ll call for an end to the protest if the very democratic Food Co-Op holds a democratic vote on whether or not to carry the offending couscous?” What protest? There is no protest against the co-op by anyone that I know of at this time. Likewise, the HV Greens are not currently involved in any ongoing protests or recent ad hoc protest activity, either.

If you mean to ask will we boycott the co-op if co-op members do not approve the referendum then I can only speak for myself: I have no plans to boycott the co-op if the boycott proposal loses in a fair and honest election and I would not support the HV Greens boycotting the PFC under such circumstances, either.

el-Hindi writes: “AnnArborGreen wants us to believe that the BIG group and Synagogue-harassers group dontwork together, but if you were to compare membership, you will see plenty of overlap, actually, probably more than that.” I know all of the players in the local anti-Zionist movement and I can state unequivocally that BIG and Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends are not working together on the PFC boycott. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar or an ignoramus. The insistence on linking the two groups is evidently an effort to distract from the actual merits of the referendum question and to create an air of guilt-by-association, where neither guilt nor association exist. This is a common Zionist tactic.

Is there overlap? Yes, but I witnessed two active opponents of the boycott who said they were members of Beth Israel and I believe them. However, no rational person would argue on this basis that Beth Israel Congregation is the real party behind the anti-boycott effort even though there is some overlap and undoubtedly most BIC members oppose the boycott.

Bottom line is this: You can say until you’re blue in the face that this boycott effort is the work of JWPF and Henry Herskovitz but that won’t make it true and, more importantly, it won’t change the fact that, according to the Ann Arbor News, “about 600” co-op members signed the petition to hold the referendum. That is far more people than any of local Palestinian solidarity groups can claim and it wasn’t local Zionists that put this on the ballot. I won’t be surprised if the measure passes.

The boycott seems pointless in and of itself, but it does bring up the issue of how Isreal treats Palestinians. I think Sol has it right, and I believe that is where things will eventually land.A state dominated by one religion, one ethnic group, and ghettoizing another will just not succeed in the long run.

In regard to the proposed
“boycott Israeli Goods” movement (BIG)at the Peoples Food coop: There are 3
main constituencies behind that movement. The prime movers are the
“anti-israel-under- any- circumstances” monomaniacs who, against all right and
reason , have been harassing Beth Israel Congregation for about 4 years.(
e.g.Henry Herskovitz,Sol Metz, Shirley Zempel, Mozhgan Savabiesfahani and her
companion Blaine Coleman —the latter referred to in an earlier News article
by reporter Tom Gantert as “an out of control buffoon”).

Then there are the possibly well- meaning but morally and historically
muddled, who wrongly conflate “misery” ( which in the case of the
Palestinians is unarguable) with “innocent victimhood”, (which is indeed quite
arguable in this instance— a point eloquently, accurately and succinctly
documented in a “News” op-ed by history prof Victor Lieberman early in
August).Such folks do the Palestinians no favor by absolving them from all
responsibilty and accountability for their sorry plight. Indeed, one could
argue, that it is they—not the much maligned “zionists” —who are the real
racists here. How so? For unconstructively treating palestinians ( and
other arabs/muslims) like not- too-
bright children, free of all consequences for an array of terrible choices by
a substantial part of that population, be it in leaders ( the Nazi-aligned
Mufti of Jerusalem,the corrupt Arafat, the fanatics of Hamas) or strategies
for coping with adversity (notably heroization of suicide bombers and other
terrorists rather than negotiation and building of civil society institutions
and ideals). These are facts that Israelis, sadly, cannot afford to ignore,
although reasonable people can and should be able to argue as to the tactical
efficacy, and, yes, morality, of some israeli responses…But of course
israelis themselves have always done that far more sensibly than Ann arbor’s
johnny- come- lately claque of Israel bashers.

So what’ve we got behind BIG? The fanatic, the confused and the disingenuous/
duplicitous…separately, let alone collectively, compelling reason to vote
against it!

Todd, I re-recommend that you direct questions to boycott supporters if you are interested in understanding where they’re coming from. I’ll point out, though, that the wording from the PFC newsletter states that the boycott would apply to products “made, grown, or originated in Israel or in Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank.” You might want to pick up a copy or visit the website for more information.

By the way, I’m taking part in a fast for combatting climate change today. In the past I’ve fasted in the interest of bringing the troops home from Iraq. You might understand that these haven’t been the only efforts that I’ve made with regard to those issues, and yet I do them. And here I am discussing—sometimes defending—a boycott effort even though I most likely won’t vote in favor of it. (I’m a PFC member.) It’s probably not surprising then that I can relate with people who may not see the approaches you point to as the best—and certainly not the only—ways of taking action.

I think that Aimee Smith explained well the background for the boycott. (And I agree with her use of the word “patronizing”, btw.) I hope that helps to clarify it for those whose perception is that its immediate intention is to establish peace in the Middle East (and for your inexplicable belief that it’s about the attention desires of the promoters, Todd.) I also think that a lot of confusion and irrelevant arguments arise from that misperception and from the unwitting misrepresentations made by those who don’t understand that stopping an occupation isn’t the same thing as bringing parties together for peace negotiations.

I understand why the referendum says we (co-op people) will boycott Israel until the BDS website calls off the boycott – because they are the ones calling for BDS- boycott, divestment, sanctions. But who makes decisions for that website? Do all the groups listed vote? Thanks

I see the condition for ending the boycott that Justaskin refers to in the referendum as a fatal flaw. Co-op members should either be given the opportunity to democratically decide on the ending of the boycott at some future time or else be presented with a clear list of criteria for its eventual end, prior to voting on the referendum. Have the Huron Valley Greens considered this, Aimee? Ann Arbor Green?

“I think that Aimee Smith explained well the background for the boycott. (And I agree with her use of the word “patronizing”, btw.) I hope that helps to clarify it for those whose perception is that its immediate intention is to establish peace in the Middle East (and for your inexplicable belief that it’s about the attention desires of the promoters, Todd.)”

For a guy and a group hell bent on symbolism, you sure are having a tough time understanding how this looks to us regular ol’ Ann Arborites.

Like it or not, some of the boycotters (picketers, whatever name you choose) were standing next to/near (or were at meeting with) some clod with a swastika. So right there there’s confusion as to who is responsible for/leading this boycott.

Some say that BIG has nothing to do with swastika-boy, but then some poster calling him/herself “Ann Arbor Green” makes the brilliant observation that, “Personally, I think it is stupid to use the swastika to make this point but the point is valid and it is not “anti-Semitic.””

Sweet. Swastikas aren’t anti-Semitic. What does a swastika insignia mean to my little Umberto Eco wannabes? “Yield to oncoming traffic”? Or “I’m cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs”?

So guess what, Steve? I have now justifiably lumped in the Ann Arbor Greens with Swastika-boy. I can assure you that I’m not the only cat in Ann Arbor to do the same. If there’s a guy with a swastika standing next to/near a bunch of other protesters/whatever outside of the PFC (or at the PFC meeting in question), the last thing I’m going to do is pick up lit. from a group like that. So the lines are blurred as to who is whom. See?

Pretend you are a new Jewish (or anyone else actually) student to Ann Arbor this fall, and you walk by the Co-op. What are you going to think when you see a swastika, and later hear that they are trying to get rid of all Israeli products? “Wow, they really love Jewish people in Ann Arbor”? Or, “wow, what an intellectually diverse town?”

Get it? So, Aimee and Steve, please forgive me for not having an activist scorecard, but it’s pretty difficult to separate the earnest people from the nutjobs. I hope you understand how confusing it is when your group is, correctly or incorrectly, associated with you-know-who.

Aimee, you have my respect for respecting the m.o. of the PFC.

Steve, the boycott in general is fine by me. I won’t boycott Israeli goods because I know full well that there are many, many Israelis who aren’t real happy about how Palestinians are treated. This, in my mind, is not a black and white issue.

Which brings me to my next to last comment. I have a problem with putting a non-prof like the PFC in the crosshairs of this boycott. I’m with Larry in that it can tear apart the Co-Op because it will make an entire people feel unwelcome. I think that this stinks, and it’s why I’m so riled up. I wouldn’t want Israelis to feel any less welcome anywhere in Ann Arbor than I would a Palestinian. Call me a bleeding heart if you wish, but there it is.

I also think that his mention of China’s not-so-swell human rights record is spot on. Boycotts, as I have said before, are a slippery, slippery slope.

My 2 cents.

The Boycott Israeli Goods Campaign and Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods (J-BIG) have organized a vigil outside Wembley Stadium, in England, to protest the Israeli soccer team’s presence.

Human rights campaigners are quoted as criticizing Israel’s “entrenched system of racial apartheid”, its “illegally occupying Palestinian land”, and its siege on Palestine, which has ‘devastated’ Palestinian daily lives.

Clearly something bad is happening to Palestine. Can that be said, or is there a danger of offending incoming freshmen?

The Boycott Israeli Goods (BIG) campaign, in England, has put their leaflet on-line:

http://bigcampaign.org/uploads/File/0705football%20leaflet(2).pdf

“So guess what, Steve? I have now justifiably lumped in the Ann Arbor Greens with Swastika-boy. I can assure you that I’m not the only cat in Ann Arbor to do the same.”

Why stop there, Todd? The Ann Arbor Greens are also the ones screaming at little kids as they go into the JCC and donning sunglasses and screaming at the 4th of July Parade attendees and participants. Their new motto should be “HVGP—Come Jump the Shark With Us!”

Todd, I’m not a member of the Huron Valley Greens (I said that I’m a PFC member.)

I am told that the JCC held a “Celebrate Israel” event, in Ann Arbor, as Israel dropped approximately one million bombs onto Lebanese civilians, including many children. Are these “Celebrate Israel” events really the wrong place to protest Israel’s behavior? If so, then one has to ask, where is the right place? Thank you in advance for your reply.

I didn’t mean to imply that you were. I shouldn’t have put your name in that paragraph. My mistake, and my apologies.

“People’s Food Co-op is not all that divided”

ANN ARBOR NEWS, September 4, 2007

http://www.mlive.com/news/annarbornews...

“Boycotts are a time-honored and effective means of political activism…The state of Israel, like South Africa, enforces a fierce regime of separation and brutalization of the Palestinian Arabs…”

I thought Blaine had left town…

Does it really matter who wrote that excellent letter, in the Ann Arbor News, about the Co-op really not being divided? The letter reinforces the fact that a human rights crisis is being addressed by the members of this community, through well-established voting channels. Does anyone claim that Palestinians are not deserving of their own homes, on their own land?

It would be nice if Blaine used his own name for his comments instead of a revolving succession of screen names.

Old Ann Arborites will remember that South Africa and Israel were very close military allies.

A British daily newspaper provided more details, last year…

“Brothers in arms – Israel’s secret pact with Pretoria”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1704037,00.html

The intro says:

“...Chris McGreal investigates the clandestine alliance between Israel and the apartheid regime, cemented with the ultimate gift of friendship – A-bomb technology.”

“It would be nice if Blaine used his own name for his comments instead of a revolving succession of screen names.”

Actually, by the (abysmally low) standards set by previous threads on related subjects, this one is an improvement. I suspect there’s some of that going on, but haven’t taken the time to be sure.

That said, I will happily delete posts from anyone obviously using revolving screen names or otherwise abusing the comments section. Please address any such requests (or related meta-commentary) to arborupdate@umich.edu; further posts on the subject here will probably be deleted.

Al Hajj Abu Aql, your post is mostly ad hominem attacks, which is not surprising given which side you support. And a nom de plume is fine but to impersonate a Muslim religious pilgrim—a Hajj—well that is just not kashrut, SLP.

Steve Bean, according to BIG members and one PFC Board member, the problematic language you referenced re: ending the boycott was inserted by BIG at the request of the previous Board of Directors (as you know, there was a Board election earlier this year). In any case, the language is not such a problem as co-op members retain the right to “democratically decide on the ending of the boycott” as they like. Since the HV Greens are not involved in the BIG campaign, except for the resolution of support, we had no prior knowledge of or say in the writing or adoption of the termination clause, which I believe was inserted after we passed our resolution.

Todd, in modern Western political discourse the swastika is a symbol of the violent fascism of the Nazi movement. When Jews and others use that symbol to expose and critique the violent fascism of the Zionist movement they are not being “anti-Semitic.” That said, I know a lot of people in this community and only two of them support the use of the swastika in this manner and those two have been asked to leave events and groups over and over again. They answer to no one but themselves.

Israeli settlers in parts of Palestine occupied in 1967 have repeatedly adopted the swastika and other Nazi symbols to protest their eviction from Palestinian territory. For example, you can read about it here So, I’ll leave it up to you to answer your question: “What does a swastika insignia mean to my little Umberto Eco wannabes?”

I am surprised that in 79 previous comments made, not a single supporter of the pro-Israeli boycott movement, has seen it fit to condemn or even acknowledge the many acts Palestinian terrorism that various Palestinian groups have committed over the years.
What am I to take from the silence on ths matter?-That y’all are silent supporters of vicious acts of violence carried out by Palestinian terrorists? Acts of terrorism against Israelis or Americans must be OK, right?
Please do explain, will ya?

Seriously, if you are all for peace an justice and non-violence, why dont you all condemn violence by Palestinian terrorists too? It doesnt make sense that you are all bent out of shape over Israeli actions, but are mum, when Palestinians commit acts of violence. Doesnt seemto be logically consistent If violence is a bad, it should be condemned regardless of who commits it. i wonder -why the double standard?

Think of Nat Turner.

“Todd, in modern Western political discourse the swastika is a symbol of the violent fascism of the Nazi movement. When Jews and others use that symbol to expose and critique the violent fascism of the Zionist movement they are not being “anti-Semitic.””

Ah, a discussion on semiotics. Count me in.

Your above sentence is incorrect. What you mean to write is, “Todd, in modern Western political discourse, one of the many meanings of the swastika is a symbol of the violent fascism of the Nazi movement.”

The swastika represents many, many things, AAGreen. People fluent in “Modern Political Discourse” would agree that it is an anti-semitic sign. I could list the hundreds of negative connotations and denotations of the swastika, but it is enough to say that one of its larger significations, particularly given the context of an Israeli goods boycott, is, essentially “wipe out the Jewish people”. It is certainly not the only signification of a swastika, but that does not, in any case, negate its anti-semitic signification.

The example you gave with some Israeli settlers speaks to this. While the wearers are Jewish, the signification of the swastika remains “wipe out the Jewish People”, but it is worn ironically, as the wearers are Jewish. This irony does not negate the message or signification, “wipe out the Jewish People”.

This handy flowchart to help you decide Should I Use Blackface on My Blog? could probably be adapted into one that answers the question, Should I Use a Swastika in My Protest?

Okay, for some reason, Todd’s words (#51) “offending couscous” just really made me crack up. Also, it makes me think of when Chef said that he gave Meatloaf his name. When one of the SP kids asks what his first choice of a name was, Chef replies, “Couscous”.

Sorry folks—it’s been a really long first day of school!

Todd, my sentence is correct. I never indicated, explicitly or implicitly, that the swastika symbolizes only one thing in modern Western political discourse and my claim that it symbolizes the violent fascism of the Nazi movement does not in any way contradict the notion that it also symbolizes anti-Jewish animus a.k.a. “anti-Semitism.” Indeed, some would argue, and I would not disagree, that the latter meaning is implied in the former.

My point is that whatever one may say about the actual symbol its use by Israeli settlers protesting their removal from the Occupied Palestinian Territories is not “anti-Semitic.” Do you disagree?

(I’ve deleted a series of inflammatory posts from the same ip address with a variety of made-up names; when that didn’t work, I took the unusual step of banning the ip. If you’re posting from that address and want the ip unblocked, or if you have any other comments or complains about moderation, contact us at arborupdate@umich.edu.)

el-Hindi,

HV Green “My point is that whatever one may say about the actual symbol its use by Israeli settlers protesting their removal from the Occupied Palestinian Territories is not “anti-Semitic.” Do you disagree”

Yup. I disagree. Moving around the context does not negate one, or many of, the significations of the Swastika (e.g.,“wipe out the Jewish People).

In other words, just because some dude claims that he’s a Jew, or knows a guy, who knows this guy who was married to this guy who was a Jew doesn’t suddenly negate one or more significations of the Swastika (e.g., wipe out the Jewish People).

AAIO’s link to a flowchart on blackface is spot on to this point. In so many words, the flow chart is asking is there any context where blackface is ok? The Rube Goldbergian (and hilarious) flow chart says, essentially, not only would you be a complete dick for using it, you’re probably just as much of a dick if you’re trying to come up with some lame-o excuse in the way of context to use blackface.

So true it hurts. Well played, AAIO.

ChuckL- the two state solution is the only possible solution. The US Govt, (and the democracies ofWestern Europe), regardless of whether it is a Democratic or a Republican Administration will never do anything that will lead to the destruction of the State of Israel. By saying that the two-state solution is only a means of placing the Palestinians in a bantustan type of situation, you seem to implythat nothing but the complete destruction of Israel will satisfy you and your fellow pro-Palestinian activist friends.

No one has answered my question yet- that is, why is act of violence, directed at innocents, not condemned, when suchacts are committed by Palestinians? Or it is ok, because the Palestinians are, in your eyes, “victims” o fthe “evil zionists”,and hence absolved of all responsibility for any and all acts of terrorism?

And if the two-state soluition is , not acceptable, what alternative solution would you propose? Driving all the Jews into the sea? That seems to be what the islamic extremists and terrorists state as their ultimate goal. And I wonder if the pro-boycott supporters are of a like mind?

F

tood, the blackface flowchart is mostly irrelevant. You’re beating a straw man. No one here is arguing that the swastika should be used in protests or on a blog. You didn’t answer the question I asked, you answered the question you wanted. I don’t dispute that one of the “significations of the Swastika” is “wipe out the Jewish People” but surely a smart guy like you can see the distinction between a symbol-in-itself and its use or employment. So, I’ll give you one more chance to be honest and answer the question posed to you: Is the act of Jewish Israeli settlers displaying a swastika in protests against the Israeli government an anti-Semitic act on the part of said settlers? Here’s a reminder: I am not asking you if the swastika symbolizes anti-Semitism, I’ve never disputed that reading.

“Is the act of Jewish Israeli settlers displaying a swastika in protests against the Israeli government an anti-Semitic act on the part of said settlers?”

Are they here in Ann Arbor? If not, why is it relevent?

“but surely a smart guy like you can see the distinction between a symbol-in-itself and its use or employment.”

Hmmmm. I don’t think that you fully grasped the significance of the flowchart, but I’ll let it go.

“Is the act of Jewish Israeli settlers displaying a swastika in protests against the Israeli government an anti-Semitic act on the part of said settlers?”

Yep. It sure is. The context doesn’t change that as one of the significations of wearing the Swastikas. Is that direct enough? Just because they are Jewish doesn’t mean that they can’t engage in anti-Semitic act, as you seem to be implying.

And to borrow my line from the blackface chart, those who do wear the damn swastikas are complete dicks for doing so.

How’d I do?

el-hindi, I think you’re being very disingenuous on at least two separate topics:

#89: By saying that the two-state solution is only a means of placing the Palestinians in a bantustan type of situation, you seem to implythat nothing but the complete destruction of Israel will satisfy you and your fellow pro-Palestinian activist friends.

Well, there’s also the imaginable outcome where Palestinians were allowed to become full citizens in Israel. Personally, I believe that’s highly unlikely, and expect a two-state outcome is probably the best realistic case, but you’re being unreasonable in stating that anybody who hopes for something other than a two-state solution is advocating driving the Jews into the sea.

#80: That y’all are silent supporters of vicious acts of violence carried out by Palestinian terrorists? Acts of terrorism against Israelis or Americans must be OK, right?

I think that reasonable people can be reasonably opposed both to Israeli brutality against Palestinians and to Palestinian suicide bombings of Israelis. (I’m one of those people.) However, I do not think that every comment should have to start with the phrase “I oppose Palestinian suicide bombing, but…” Whether or not some Palestinians engage in acts of violence against Israelis does not justify violence and brutality by Israel to Palestinians: nothing justifies it. And, while I personally believe that violence by Palestinians towards Israelis is desperate and retaliatory, and fairly understandable, I still condemn it.

But I don’t think Palestinian violence has a major role in this discussion. If you get the PFC to hold a referendum on a boycott of Palestinian-made goods, maybe we can have a thread on that. For this particular boycott, though, demanding that Palestinian violence is considered as a deciding factor seems to me to say that a certain level of Israeli violence and brutality can be justified. I don’t think that’s true.

Where is George Lambrides in this discussion? George is executive director of the Interfaith Round Table, and has claimed that the presence of Henry Herskovitz at an event – he was referring to the flyering at St. Andrews Episcopal Church a few years back – makes the event a “Vigil Event”. “You ARE the Vigil Group” he once said.

But now Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends (the Vigil Group) has been associated with the Boycott Israeli Goods group (BIG) by opponents of the boycott, in spite of the following:

—> I have never attended one BIG meeting.
—> I have never attended one PFC Co-op meeting.
—> I have never handed out one leaflet at the People’s Food Co-op.
—> I have never asked for one signature on any of the petitions.

Further,

—> BIG activities are never discussed at JWPF meetings.
—> The same two individuals who were thrown out of BIG are carelessly and falsely associated with JWPF (one quit; the other was asked to leave).
—> A member of the BIG group worked to damage JWPF by convincing an out of town peace activist to change her mind about standing vigil with us.
—> Nowhere in the 26 weekly vigil reports issued since January, are the BIG group and its activities even mentioned.

The prescient letter writer in the (Fall, 2007) PFC “Connection” forecast: “I expect that the opponents of this referendum will probably play the guilt by association card. They will probably tell you to vote no lest you become associated with certain people whom they consider to be beyond the pale.”

The false charges of equating JWPF and BIG contained in this exchange testify to the accuracy of her predictions.

JWPF holds peaceful, silent vigils on Saturday mornings; BIG asks members of the People’s Food Co-op to boycott Israeli goods.

todd wrote:

“Is the act of Jewish Israeli settlers displaying a swastika in protests against the Israeli government an anti-Semitic act on the part of said settlers?”

Yep. It sure is. The context doesn’t change that as one of the significations of wearing the Swastikas. Is that direct enough? Just because they are Jewish doesn’t mean that they can’t engage in anti-Semitic act, as you seem to be implying.

Your syntax in the third sentence of the second paragraph above seems odd but, yes, your meaning is finally clear and I thank you for that. To clarify, I never suggested that the settlers being Jewish was the relevant issue—it just happened to be that they were Jewish. I have already indicated that I think that the context does matter and is the relevant issue—you disagree. Would you assert, then, that the use of the swastika numerous times here is also an anti-Semitic act?

Now, I’ve read the articles and, well, vaguely skimmed the discussion. And the first question, which doesn’t seem answered anywhere (do your job, Jo Mathis) is how many Israeli products the PFC carries now. Things might have changed, but when I worked there, there wasn’t a damned stick of Israeli chapstick or a bottle of Israeli olive oil. No gefilte, no knishes, if we had bagels they were from Avalon.

Assuming that there are no real world consequences, lemme wade into this morass of fallacies, bad faith and third-rate demagoguery.

First off, clarifying my biases: I think the ideal is a one-state solution. I think that one state should be secular and be willing to recognize both the Israeli and Palestinian cultural stakes, etc. etc. I just can’t get behind a religious state, and that’s my beef with Israel.

Given all that, though, the best “in our times” solution is a two-state one, and that raises the question of whether vociferously pressing for a boycott from some PFC in the Midwest is the best application of resources for that goal.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we all think the occupation’s got some fundamental problems, and at least on this website, I don’t think you’ll find a lot of pro-settler partisans.

Does that mean that a boycott is the best use of opposenik resources? No. I think a lot of the traction that this has gotten is because it IS something that Henry et al. CAN influence. They’re at least inspiring debate amongst the liberal Ann Arbor intelligencia and ward healers.

But sometimes it’s more important to be one of many small hands rolling a big ball than the only hand rolling a small one. I think that peace in the Middle East is going to take more people working to wean Israel off subsidies and to establish a functional Palestinian infrastructure than it will folks with placards and slogans that rhyme.

For those who would argue that this IS a part of a bigger picture, what picture is that? Is it raising nebulous “awareness,” often vaunted like some RPG attribute (useful vaguely, but abstract in practice)? What good would further Ann Arbor awareness do that wouldn’t be more concretely achieved by other means, even by other people? It’s the “drawing to an inside straight” of politics.

Given all that, the proponents of the boycott have no choice but to resort to emotional appeals. Rather than arguing to persuade, to enjoin and to consense, the arguments that I have seen here have been to dissuade support of Israel, to alternately disassemble and dissemble, and to act with a zealotry rightly dismissed as “fringe.”
The use of Apartheid rhetoric is apt. They are the zealots who forgot South Africa as soon as Botha left. These are not the people who Palestinians or Israelis would have plot their future.

Any person who truly desires peace, any person who understands that peace requires process, any person opposed to local silliness and the triumph of ideology over practicality should be able to ask themselves if they’re making progress (the root of progressive, y’all) toward the true goals they support rather than working to divide and exclude by voting for this proposal.

js, thanks for one of the most fallacious, bad faith comment I’ve seen during this entire thread. Zionist propaganda this sanctimonious and obfuscatory is, well, just breathtaking. You spout all this hollow “progressive” claptrap only to bring us to a left Zionist position: 1) The two-state solution is the only realistic option; and, 2) Don’t do what Palestinians (and some Jews) have asked people of conscience to do—support broad boycotts of Israeli goods—because it’s divisive.

How many of you self-styled progressive co-op members out there would support a PFC boycott of Odwalla or Horizon or would that undercut your arguments against boycotting Israeli goods?

Does anyone know how the BDS web site works?

As far as the swastika symbol, context means everything. Consider the cross. Outside of a building, on a steeple, a cross means something entirely different than if it is lit on fire and being carried by someone wearing a white hood. Years ago, being carried by a crusader or a roman, a cross would symbolize something else.

It would seem that assuming that someone brandishing a swastika wanted to “wipe out the Jewish People” would be just as presumptuous as assuming that everyone inside a church with a cross on top “wanted to crucify Jesus”.

But I could be wrong on this. (Pre-emptive disqualifier as I don my flame-retardant clothing).

As of the Jewish New Year on the evening of September 13th it will be a Shmita Year-
(every 7th year the fields have to lie fallow)

Jewish farmers (in Israel)are forbidden to harvest anything for a year.
Guess what?

Even the Israeli Army won’t be buying any produce from Jewish farmers, they’ll only buy from Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank and Jordan etc.

So you want to hurt Arab farmers by boycotting Israel. That’s smart.

If you don’t belive me, look it up.

The Badatz Edah Haredit, which provides an ultra-Orthodox kashrut certification, recently signed an agreement with Palestinian farmers in the Gaza Strip to provide 60 tons of fruit and vegetables over the coming year.

If Palestinian farmers in Gaza are not boycotting Israel, why should the coop over a few bags of couscous?

I have to thank so many posters for their insights.
Boycotting always seems a bit silly, doesn’t it? The posters are right, that boyctting is “divisive”. Of course, sit-ins, protets, all these things are “divisive.” I do hope the posters will consider the converse as well.

Does the act of strenuously protecting Israel, from any boycott, from any protest, seem equally “divisive” to the Palestinians who live in Ann Arbor? Not to be overly sentimental, but many have been compelled to flee their homes in Palestine.

Just a word about the Montgomery Bus boycott. Was it really too “divisive”? Did it make whites feel too “unwelcome”? Thank you in advance for your response.

What the Dalai Lama said about boycotting China

Should we boycott Chinese products?

“That is a tricky question. It is sticky, it has glues. I’m not seeking
independence of Tibet, although Tibet is historically an independent
nation. Today the situation in Tibet is very serious. Whether intentionally
or unintentionally some kind of cultural genocide is taking place. Tibet’s
complete form of Buddhism is now dying. My task: save, protect Tibetan
culture and Tibetan Buddhism. Best is to talk with Chinese government
to solve problem. Therefore the boycott, from my side, I am not much in favor
about that.

“js, thanks for one of the most fallacious, bad faith comment I’ve seen during this entire thread. Zionist propaganda this sanctimonious and obfuscatory is, well, just breathtaking. You spout all this hollow “progressive” claptrap only to bring us to a left Zionist position: 1) The two-state solution is the only realistic option; and, 2) Don’t do what Palestinians (and some Jews) have asked people of conscience to do—support broad boycotts of Israeli goods—because it’s divisive.”

Really? What logical fallacies did I engage in? Argumentum ad pragmatum?
The two-state solution is the only currently viable political option for Palestine and Israel, and is likely to be for the next 50 or so years. You want one state (which I’ve never heard any protester offer any sort of plan or vision for—they’re just against Israel)? Get two functional states first. You want to affect real change? Either work on the macro level to reduce US subsidies to Israel (which a PFC boycott won’t do), thus forcing a more leveraged negotiation, or work on the micro level, doing something like sponsoring the children’s camps that have both Arabic and Jewish kids.

As for the frequent invocations of civil rights and Nazis, both situations were wildly different, and only someone with delusions of grandeur would pretend that their co-op vote puts them in the same moral sphere as Rosa Parks.

Which is pretty much what I said in my last comment: this is for little people with small visions to feel like they’re affecting the greater world.

It is telling that all of the “rebuttals” focused on histrionic emotional appeals, and none of them said why, exactly, this helps the situation in the Middle East.

(Oh, and the Palestinians I knew, if they shopped at the PFC at all, were perfectly able to avoid Israeli cous-cous if they chose. Same as any of the rest of you.)

Thanks for policing the comments, Bruce.

You would think that someone who felt compelled to throw ad hominems at so many participants in this discussion would also feel likewise compelled to include their full name.

(Oh, and the Palestinians I knew, if they shopped at the PFC at all, were perfectly able to avoid Israeli cous-cous if they chose. Same as any of the rest of you.)

The intro of the above sentence struck me as sounding remarkably similar to,

“But some of my best friends are black…”

Mike, my name’s Josh Steichmann. And for your future edification, ad hominems aren’t attacks—they’re a fallacy of discrediting based on personal traits (“Of course you’d say that—you’re a Jew!”), or (the earlier usage) emotional appeals, which is what “to the man” initially referred to.

So, frankly, the “full name” is more of an ad hominem fallacy than anything I’ve put forward.

Feel free to browse the archives and see where I had this discussion with a guy named TJ about, I dunno, three years ago.

I’ll also note, again, that you didn’t bother to provide any rationale for action, that you didn’t bother to put forth any vision for a one-state solution, that you didn’t bother to address anything of substance, Mike.

It is very true that boycott proponents frequently have no vision of where their boycott will lead. For example, the Montgomery Bus Boycott participants had a vision that better treatment on city buses would result. They could hardly envision that segregation on those buses would end, nor segregation in the entire nation.

Those who now ask for the boycott of Israeli goods may, similarly, lack any vision of where that boycott will lead. Perhaps the Ypsilanti Co-op will have a boycott of Israel, next. Or perhaps a complete demilitarization of the Middle East will result: no armies, no air forces. Or perhaps, an agreement to give Palestine the same size army, air force, nuclear weaponry, etc. as Israel. Maybe nothing at all will result.

So much time could be taken up with visions, that perhaps no boycott would ever be undertaken. Of course, the situation of Palestine today, sealed-off borders, electricity shut-downs, food and water shortages, etc., merits something beyond quiet sympathy. To express that sympathy openly, to ask for a boycott, cannot be an unwelcome sight to those in Palestine who learn of it. Your friends from Palestine may want to share their thoughts here.

“It is very true that boycott proponents frequently have no vision of where their boycott will lead. For example, the Montgomery Bus Boycott participants had a vision that better treatment on city buses would result. They could hardly envision that segregation on those buses would end, nor segregation in the entire nation.”

Oh, that’s bullshit. The Montgomery Bus Boycott was a stage-managed affair from beginning to end, relying on a fair amount of media savvy and with definite national goals.

“Those who now ask for the boycott of Israeli goods may, similarly, lack any vision of where that boycott will lead. Perhaps the Ypsilanti Co-op will have a boycott of Israel, next. Or perhaps a complete demilitarization of the Middle East will result: no armies, no air forces. Or perhaps, an agreement to give Palestine the same size army, air force, nuclear weaponry, etc. as Israel. Maybe nothing at all will result.”

And maybe it will engender an army of magical unicorns that will allow us to suckle peace from their rainbow teats. Is that likely? No. Is it a coherent vision likely to result? No. Further, the argument that things like this boycott, which IS divisive, should be pursued with no apparent benefit to anyone anywhere aside from some specious handwaving about world peace is irresponsible at best.

“So much time could be taken up with visions, that perhaps no boycott would ever be undertaken. Of course, the situation of Palestine today, sealed-off borders, electricity shut-downs, food and water shortages, etc., merits something beyond quiet sympathy. To express that sympathy openly, to ask for a boycott, cannot be an unw