Arbor Update

Ann Arbor Area Community News

Candidate questionnaire, August 09: Palestine

30. July 2009 • Murph
Email this article

Continuing our candidate questionnaire results…

#5 – Would you support Council discussion of a resolution to support sanctioning Israeli actions towards the Palestinian people? What is your opinion on past Council discussion of resolutions on divestment from South Africa (1986), urging the lifting of economic sanctions against Iraq (2000), or opposing war with Iraq (2002)?

Kunselman: From the examples that are provided, it’s pretty clear that previous Councils have avoided deliberating the “hot topic” international issues that are obviously under the purview of the federal government. While I have my own views on these issues, bringing them to the Council table is not what I believe a Council member is elected to do and thus, no, I do not support discussing issues pertaining to the Mideast, Tibet, Somalia, North Korea, China, or any other country where human lives are being trampled by repressive authorities.

Greden: No. I do not believe the City Council should involve itself in foreign policy matters.

(Candidates Bullington, Anglin, and Rosencrans did not provide responses.)



  1. The Anti-Defamation League in its website has chronicled the actions of Ann Arbor City Council and the issue of divestment from State of Israel-related business ventures advanced by local activists.

    Green Party activities were also reported on.

    Here’s the link: www.adl.org/main_Israel/Divestment_02_17_05.htm?Multi_page_sections=sHeading_4


       —Mark Koroi    Jul. 30 '09 - 09:22PM    #
  2. amen to kunselman/gredens per the above. the coop votes , in one of the more politically aware constituencies in town , twice massively rejected the israel boycott efforts of a handful of zealots with their well known “ camel with nose in tent “ M.O.

    these folks should be aware that people are “on to them” and will no longer passively tolerate their attempts to hijack organizations like the city council to their narrow agendas.

    and moderators: gird yourselves for the predictable posts from “ badr-guzu-colonel-blibblahbloo” ,or whatever screen names b.c. and m.s.—ann arbor’s “ozzie and harriet of hate’— and their cronies may invent to spam this thread with.

    ted katz, aka


       —goilem    Jul. 31 '09 - 03:54PM    #
  3. Greden, Kunselman, and Goilem pretty much said it all and summed it up very well.

    I can almost quote myself now (although with apologies to Soupy Sales from whom I paraphrase): this issue has absolutely nothing, positively nothing, truly, truly nothing, absolutely NOTHING at all to do with running Ann Arbor. It is no surprise at all that the City Council and the People’s Food Co-op and many others in this very savvy town reject this irrelevant crap out of hand every single time.

    And while we’re on the subject: at least Soupy was/is an entertaining clown, much more than we can say about the tedious local jesters of hijacks (not to be confused with hijinks). Good thing for them that they’re not at Henry VIII’s court!


       —Mike    Jul. 31 '09 - 04:43PM    #
  4. After the display made on this blog in response to past posts only tangentially related to Israel/ Palestine conflict and the mess the moderators had to wade through, I find it bizarre that Arbor Update would post a topic which will only bring the lunatics out of the woodwork again. I find it even more bizarre that a candidate questionnaire on the level of city government would even have such a question (but this is Ann Arbor after all).


       —D. Bear    Jul. 31 '09 - 05:52PM    #
  5. d.bear(#4)…although we seem to be on the same side here, in all fairness to ‘murph” and the other moderators i was one who originally supported such a questionnaire query in order to “suss out” possible candidate-supporters of such irrevant-to- local-governance inanity ( and there have been council members in the past who did!). That so they could then be voted against.

    since the issue has been on this thread in one form or another for about 2 months and no candidates have come forward in support of it ( only against it, per greden/kunselman above!) that suggests the question has been “asked and answered”, as they say on “law and order”.


       —goilem    Jul. 31 '09 - 06:32PM    #
  6. Goilem— Indeed we are on the same side of this issue. I was merely commenting on 2 aspects of this issue: (1) the fact that Arbor Update, wonderful blog for us sane Ann Arborites but also the stomping grounds of the local lunatic fringe pushing such over the top issues as divestment, would publish post that would almost certainly draw those crazies out and (2) the sad state of things when it is necessary to solicit such information from council candidates and that said candidates would even concern themselves professionally with such an issue.


       —D. Bear    Jul. 31 '09 - 06:49PM    #
  7. The first 4 comments pretty well cover what there is to say about the merits of the Blaine Coleman proposal. I do find it strange that the final phrasing of the question was shrunk to Coleman’s obsession. The broader issue was whether Council should dabble in foreign policy. If anyone is in the mood for sanctions, how about targeting the murderous regimes of Sudan, Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe, etc…? As a Holocaust survivor, I see a drive to bash the Jews (and only the Jews) as redolent of Kristalnacht.


       —Henry Brysk    Jul. 31 '09 - 06:51PM    #
  8. Amen to 1-7. I would just as soon be busy with my life than have to deal with such irrelevant-to-the-running-of-Ann Arbor questions. Unless one or more of the other candidates wants to and does reply to the question as posed at the top of this page, and if Murph agrees, of course, I respectfully propose that this thread be closed before this does get loco and then, there’s no telling when the tap will be shut off! Any seconds?

    (Lest I get accused of trying to control the conversation…)


       —Mike    Jul. 31 '09 - 07:42PM    #
  9. second.


       —D. Bear    Jul. 31 '09 - 07:43PM    #
  10. A show of hands? All those in favor? Aye!


       —Mike    Jul. 31 '09 - 08:25PM    #
  11. aye.


       —D. Bear    Jul. 31 '09 - 08:28PM    #
  12. d.bear(#11)…wouldnt that be a paw?


       —goilem    Jul. 31 '09 - 08:41PM    #
  13. You’re thinking of somebody else, Goilem. Please just raise your clay hand and vote! ;-)


       —Mike    Jul. 31 '09 - 09:46PM    #
  14. To paraphrase Shakespeare, we “have come to bury…”. It is time to lay this nonsense to rest.


       —Henry Brysk    Aug. 1 '09 - 02:18PM    #
  15. This is interesting that you all seem so confident in the control you have here that you now take votes to close threads and end discussions. But unlike the previous election, it looks like your side has enough votes right from the get-go this time – so there will be no need to post-extend any deadlines.

    But let me get back to the subject of this thread so that my comment doesn’t get extreme renditioned to the AU dungeon.

    I notice Greden exhibits less verbosity in his “official” communications than he does with those other ones.

    (Click my name below to read some very interesting things recently said by a woman, Sibel Edmonds, who is the “most gagged person in US history”)


       —Michael Schils    Aug. 1 '09 - 03:26PM    #
  16. [off topic, removed]
       —goilem    Aug. 1 '09 - 05:35PM    #
  17. Michael,

    Keep up the good work! I find it amusing to watch the zombie drone attacks launched by the “Anything Israel Does Is Right And If You Don’t Agree, You’re An Anti-Semite!” (“AIDIRAIYDAYAAS”) Crowd; but maybe the council candidates don’t. I guess the AIDIRAIYDAYAAS’s will have to institute a fatwa on Kunselman since he mentioned “…where human lives are being trampled by repressive authorities” in the context of a discussion of Israel.
       —That Chuck    Aug. 1 '09 - 06:00PM    #
  18. [off topic, removed]
       —goilem    Aug. 1 '09 - 06:41PM    #
  19. [off topic, removed]
       —goilem    Aug. 1 '09 - 08:34PM    #
  20. [off-topic, removed]
       —That Chuck    Aug. 1 '09 - 08:55PM    #
  21. [off-topic, removed]
       —Henry Brysk    Aug. 1 '09 - 09:04PM    #
  22. Since the response (#16) to Michael Shils (#15) was removed as off topic, I followed through to find out what Shils’ topic is. The substance of it is his endorsement of a link he provides to an interview of a conspiracy theorist who asserts that the US government is hiding dark secrets about 9/11 in cahoots with bin Laden and the Turks (I am not making this up).


       —Henry Brysk    Aug. 2 '09 - 12:51AM    #
  23. Henry Brysk,

    What is the basis for your claim that I am in to “…blaming all the sins of the world on the Jews…” Nothing! I have never said that, nor will I. You miss my point in using the term fatwa to describe how dogmatic, rabid, zealot supporters of Israel respond to any criticism of Israel. Yes, it is exactly the madness of Islamic supporters of real fatwas I am comparing the actions of equally intolerant supporters of Israel to; I have not shrugged off anything! The money spent on wars in the Middle East by the US could be used locally, the people who fight these wars and come back scared and damaged are local. I disagree with the idea that local elected officials should leave foreign policy matters to Washington alone; but with Israel and AIPAC being major cheerleaders of US military aggression in the Middle East and their drone supporters here imposing litmus tests that essentially amount to taring anyone who dares question Israeli aggression as an anti-semite; I can see why our local politicos are running towards the exits when it comes to speaking their minds on International issues.
       —That Chuck    Aug. 2 '09 - 03:24AM    #
  24. #23: if “that chuck” is chas loucks who ran unsucessfully for the coop board ( and his language, notably the “drone supporters” phrase loucks has used before in other threads ,suggests that he is) henry brysk and i ( in my unfortunately deleted post #18) are absolutely correct in labeling him and his allies antisemites.

    his unambiguous alliance with those who locally call for the dismantling of the existing state of israel ( which comprises 1/3 of world jewry)would at best place israeli jews on the tender mercies ,as “guests’( a phrase used by aimee smith, loucks co- officer in the HURON VALLEY GREENS), of those whose genocidal intents toward them are openly expressed , and who indeed treat their own co-religionists/ethnics with brutality.

    any respectable city council candidate should “run for the exits “ rather than get in bed with such folks.

    of course, re the above, if it’s different “chuck”, my “duck test” is faulty…but i don’t think it is in this case.

    ( there ya go, moderators, a bit lighter on the insults but necessary ‘on topic’ substance/context is still there, whether or not a particular moderator finds it ‘interesting’)


       —goilem    Aug. 2 '09 - 03:50AM    #
  25. That Chuck (sure sounds like THAT Chuck, i.e., Charles Loucks): as Henry Brysk very accurately points out, you and the rest of the AHI/ATT, aka All-Hate-Israel/All-The-Time squad, are true experts at manipulation and projection. By comparing backers of Israel with the “madness of Islamic supporters of real fatwas,” you are blatantly—and really rather crudely—trying to deflect people’s attention away from the fanaticism of the militant haters of Israel right here within our midst.

    When the lone issue that you and others are obsessed with, i.e., singling out Israel out of all countries, governments, and organizations in the world for condemnation and demonizing her supporters to the exclusion of all else, you do indeed demonstrate unmistakable traits of the term you run from but that ostensibly identifies your proclivities and statements. You clearly misrepresent anyone who is a backer of Israel as being entirely uncritical of Israel and anything it does. This is a boldface lie and a clumsy attempt to tar (to borrow your phrase, TC), anyone who supports Israel as a “cheerleader,” a “bully” and, as printed on the signs of the Beth Israel Congregation stalkers, far worse.

    Do you support the actions of the synagogue picketers, BTW, and if so, do you not find that such backing is a grievous example of hypocrisy as that indefensible, immoral, pompous harassment of worshippers for over five years now is a lot worse than mere bullying?

    Whereas I have heard plenty of criticism of Israel from her supporters as well as a lot of self-recriminations in Israel itself about almost everything, I have never heard any of the anti-Israel crew on Arbor Update or out on the self-righteous picket lines utter a single word of condemnation of terrorist activities by Israel’s enemies or any of the far worse acts of aggression and violence continuously perpetrated by Islamists and Arabs from Darfur to Egypt to Afghanistan to Pakistan to India to Indonesia to Israel to the US (remember 9/11, by any chance?) and back again.

    Crimes such as mass murder; mass rape; honor killings; decapitations; limb removals; stoning; mass starvation; knee-capping and other torture; cultural and physical genocide; brutal suppression of free speech and assembly; overthrowing of centuries’ old sovereign states and then occupying the very same land and calling it one’s own; suicide bombings; remoter detonations aimed at human targets; missiles destined for kindergartens, day care centers, synagogues, bus stops, and private homes; bombings and/or arson destruction of mosques, churches, and temples and girls’ schools, etc., etc., etc., committed by Saudis; Zimbabweans; Uzbeks; Chinese; Congolese; Burmese; Rwandans; Iranians; Iraqis; Palestinian Arabs; Sudanese; Syrians; Egyptians; not to mention Hezbollah; Hamas; Islamic Jihad; Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade; PFLP; Al Qaeda; and Taliban, just to name a very few, apparently disturb you far less—or sadly not at all—when compared with Israel’s engaging in legitimate acts of self-defense.

    Israel—as I have often said—is indeed guilty of committing some major miscalculations, more than one of which has led to the unfortunate deaths and injuries of innocent people. But, the major difference between Israel’s blunders and the deliberate, barbaric tactics cited just above is that on the whole—there are rogue elements in every army—the IDF does not intentionally launch attacks on civilians and that the Israeli military exhibits incredible restraint and endures an amazing number of unprovoked attacks before it has no choice but to strike back, even if—at times—its strategies are flawed. And, when any military criminal actions are uncovered, Israeli civilian and military courts, tribunals, boards, and panels take them seriously, investigate, and have indeed punished perpetrators. And Israel’s free press will make sure that no transgression stays hidden.

    On the other side, we have groups like Hamas and Hezbollah who encourage children to “martyr” themselves by going out to slaughter as many civilians as they can; “freedom fighters” who smash children’s and babies’ heads in after forcing them to watch the cold-blooded murder of their mothers and/or fathers and/or siblings; people who joyfully celebrate in the streets as occurred in the West Bank and Gaza among other Arab and Moslem-controlled jurisdictions when thousands were incinerated in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania by the (largely) Saudi hijackers eight years ago this September; rejoice at such carnage; where spilling blood is seen as virtuous; and who cynically shake fists and cry “murder” when they calculatedly instigate their attacks from within densely populated areas where they know there will be a heavy toll of death and destruction among civilians, and, in fact, they actually invite and relish it.

    And again and again: when you turn a blind eye to the far worse actions—just a fraction of which were enumerated above—and constantly cry out only for sanctioning Israel—which is the only country in the world governed by Jews—although you try frantically to escape from the label, it is entirely accurate to identify your lopsided calls for divestment and embargoes as antisemitic as you shake your fists and your signs against only Israel and the people who are her supporters especially Jews—no matter how nuanced and varied their stands—e.g., going to worship on the Sabbath.

    And thus, the Council members and candidates who have spoken—and as is pretty clear by the non-reaction of the rest—your single issue is undeniably irrelevant to the Council and their function as municipal civil servants. That the City Council unanimously condemned the pickets and their harassment of the congregants at Beth Israel is unambiguous evidence that they—like the vast majority of our fellow Ann Arborites—reject the shrill monomania of those who time-after-time raise only this issue as they try to isolate Israel. The stance of the Council, like the members of the People’s Food Co-op whose votes overwhelmingly rebuffed similar efforts at usurping our proper agenda there not once, but thrice, in less than two years, indicates what’s really of importance and what is not to our fair city and its residents.

    TC, you state, “I can see why our local politicos are running towards the exits when it comes to speaking their minds on International issues.” You see it for the entirely wrong reasons and fail (or refuse) to see from whom and what they’re actually running. These folks are sick and tired of being attacked, vilified, intimidated, and harangued by a gang of extremist zealots whose sole issue is doing whatever they can to try to dismantle the Jewish State and keep the municipal government from taking care of truly apposite business.

    You also fail to realize that the monomania leading to such counterproductive and hateful activities as synagogue stalking has shamelessly squandered a great deal of the sympathy the Palestinian Arabs may have had for their legitimate grievances and real suffering—albeit frequently the result of self-inflicted wounds. If you think that for one moment your posturing for the City of Ann Arbor to take a stand on this very complex and intractable state of affairs and just attack one faction in the dispute, will bring peace to the Middle East, you are truly laboring under a magnificent delusion. And, if you don’t like federal dollars being used to support Israel, take your beef to the US Capitol and/or to our US Senators and Members of Congress. City Council members—as are most of the rest of us—are fed up with incessant fringe efforts to hijack the people’s business in Ann Arbor.


       —Mike    Aug. 2 '09 - 07:45AM    #
  26. Re: #17: The poster calling himself That Chuck claims: “I guess the AIDIRAIYDAYAAS’s will have to institute a fatwa on Kunselman since he mentioned ‘…where human lives are being trampled by repressive authorities’ in the context of a discussion of Israel.”

    As anyone can plainly see by reading the short paragraph at the very top of this thread with candidate Kunselman’s unequivocal quote—although it appears that Chuck is trying again to pull the wool over people’s eyes—this is what Kunselman stated:

    “From the examples that are provided, it’s pretty clear that previous Councils have avoided deliberating the ‘hot topic’ international issues that are obviously under the purview of the federal government. While I have my own views on these issues, bringing them to the Council table is not what I believe a Council member is elected to do and thus, no, I do not support discussing issues pertaining to the Mideast, Tibet, Somalia, North Korea, China, or any other country where human lives are being trampled by repressive authorities.”

    Here’s where That Chuck’s shabby attempt at sleight-of-hand falls flat on its face. Nowhere did Kunselman bring up Israel or even imply that it tramples human lives or has a repressive government. He did, however, identify specific countries where human rights are violated: “Tibet, Somalia, North Korea, China.”

    Kunselman also explicitly agrees with those of clear vision that the City Council is an inappropriate forum to discuss issues that he rightly concludes are the province of the federal government.

    So, I don’t think it’s any kind of stretch to say that such folks who push the one-issue single-out Israel agenda and mock Israel’s supporters are guilty of demagoguery when they play fast and loose even with the truth right before our very eyes. It’s quite a contorted spectacle to watch Chuck struggle to twist a quote out of shape as he desperately tries to make others think it says something that just isn’t there. Kunselman says nothing at all like what TC is feebly attempting to deceive the gentle reader into thinking it says. He bends a candidate’s position that in fact straightforwardly opposes what the all anti-Israel/all-the-time crew, the AAIATTs, once again want to undemocratically impose on the majority of us, no matter how unambiguously and continuously it is rejected. Really, this kind of weak stab at deception is a clear cut example of calling day “night.”


       —Mike    Aug. 2 '09 - 09:06AM    #
  27. [off-topic, removed]
       —Henry Brysk    Aug. 2 '09 - 01:16PM    #
  28. You must lack confidence in your spin, because, for the most part, you are commenting anonymously. For the most part, you are dealing in personal libels rather than in the proposed Palestine resolution.

    For myself, I am commenting on this candidate questionnaire, and on the question it poses to the candidates, about Palestine.

    No candidate has answered it.

    I ask the candidates to stop pretending that City Council doesn’t deal in international resolutions, proclamations, etc., because it does— often.

    For example, Mayor Hieftje just issued a proclamation against , in City Council, about a month ago.

    Since the January 9, 1984 City Council meeting, sanctions against Israel have been an issue at Ann Arbor City Council. In fact, thousands have petitioned the City Council for sanctions against Israel:

    25 Years of Demanding Sanctions against Israel, in Ann Arbor City Council

    So yes, we deserve an answer from every City Council member—

    After seeing Gaza massacred, are you for, or against, boycotting Israeli products?

    _______________________________________________


       —Blaine Coleman    Aug. 2 '09 - 08:47PM    #
  29. Well, well, look who’s back—and calling the kettle black—only because he couldn’t get away with all the histrionic headlines for sign-off aliases when the rules got stricter, or did you run out of avatars? And, you obviously can’t refute anything we state about how much more horrible, civilian-targeted violence issues forth from Islamic and Arab perpetrators and many others than from the Jewish state you despise with a desperate, maniacal, passion that exceeds most obsessions.

    When you get rebuffed everywhere you go, and your single-issue is kicked away every time, one would think that you’d take the hint. I suppose that would just be too rational.

    Two of the candidates gave their answer. The others obviously have more pressing concerns as do the vast majority of Ann Arbor residents. Admit it, you’re outflanked, outnumbered, out-maneuvered, and outsmarted. You have no substance to your incessant, never-ending, fist-shaking fanaticism. Your issue is wholly irrelevant as regards municipal business. And just because it’s so sacrosanct to you, doesn’t mean it is to almost anyone else here. The City Council, like the PFC, and the preponderance of A2 rejects your extremist hate-driven tirades and constant (ever-failing) attempts to hijack every agenda in town as it does the plague you bring on your own one and only cause. Frustrating, isn’t it?


       —Mike    Aug. 3 '09 - 12:20AM    #
  30. [off-topic, removed]
       —That Chuck    Aug. 3 '09 - 02:02AM    #
  31. re #28: here’s an idea!

    if for some reason candidates don’t respond to mr. coleman’s request, maybe he’d consider appearing before the city council( perhaps in a tersely worded sandwich board…just 2 words or so!) reminding them of the centrality of gaza to the business of the ann arbor city council.

    maybe a friend or spouse could accompany him. i know they’d be cordially welcomed

    ted katz


       —goilem    Aug. 3 '09 - 06:27AM    #
  32. [off-topic, removed]
       —Henry Brysk    Aug. 3 '09 - 01:24PM    #
  33. After all the libels from anonymous posters, it is novel to see a real name signed to the above comment. My answer will be a disappointment to that commenter.

    Why does the candidate questionnaire ask Councilmembers for their position on sanctions against Israel?

    Why do we still ask the City Council for boycott against Israel? Why do we still ask the candidates to allow a public hearing, and a public vote, on boycotting Israel? Everyone who cares to attend City Council knows why.

    The City Council, and its audience, have heard us recall (and, hopefully, have verified) Israel’s massacres against Palestine and Lebanon, Israel’s robbery of Palestinian and Lebanese land, Israel’s violent support of the most racist and genocidal regimes on Earth (like Apartheid South Africa, like the military regimes of Guatemala).

    From the Council meeting of January 9, 1984, until the Council meeting of July 20, 2009, Councilmembers have been showered with thousands of petition signatures demanding sanctions against Israel, due to its crimes against humanity.

    Councilmembers have been showered with countless speeches, flyers, posters, signs, audio and video presentations, showing that Palestine and Lebanon have been crucified by the Israeli military.

    This City Council ought to acknowledge the victims of Israeli and U.S. mass murder, and ought to condemn the mass murderers.

    Instead, the City Council votes to condemn those who publicly defend the millions of Palestinian victims. Instead, the City sends a police lieutenant to physically shut down a video of Israeli soldiers breaking the bones of their young Palestinian captives, effectively censoring Public Comment time at City Council.

    A stone would cry, to see what “Israel” has done to millions of innocent Palestinians. Readers must be gaping in disbelief that Congress has already given “Israel” $300 billion as it massacres Palestinians. But Congressman Dingell has confirmed it.

    And the above commenter asks us to turn our eyes away, far away, from the ongoing Holocaust against Palestine. I would hope that no one will still deny the Holocaust being carried out against Palestine.

    That is why we still ask the candidates to answer the questionnaire, on the issue of City Council sanctions against “Israel”.


       —Blaine Coleman    Aug. 4 '09 - 03:54PM    #
  34. [off-topic, removed]
       —goilem    Aug. 4 '09 - 04:51PM    #
  35. About the Arbor Update questionnaire, question 5:

    The very real violence of Israel, which has massacred tens of thousands of Arabs on YOUR DIME… that should be something your public representatives will publicly oppose.

    Anonymous doesn’t count, on City Council.

    Tell us:

    Does Arab life count, to your City Council representatives? If so, let them answer the Arbor Update questionnaire, question number 5:

    “#5 – Would you support Council discussion of a resolution to support sanctioning Israeli actions towards the Palestinian people? What is your opinion on past Council discussion of resolutions on divestment from South Africa (1986), urging the lifting of economic sanctions against Iraq (2000), or opposing war with Iraq (2002)?”

    Since January 1984, City Council has been called upon to allow sanctions against Israel. When will City Council hear the cries of Israel’s millions of victims? After all of Gaza is dead?


       —Blaine Coleman    Aug. 4 '09 - 05:14PM    #
  36. [repeat/reword of post from 15 minutes before, removed]
       —Blaine Coleman    Aug. 4 '09 - 05:32PM    #
  37. [off-topic, removed]
       —goilem    Aug. 4 '09 - 05:35PM    #
  38. [repeat of posts from several minutes ago, removed]
       —Blaine Coleman    Aug. 4 '09 - 05:48PM    #
  39. [another repeat, removed]
       —Blaine Coleman    Aug. 4 '09 - 06:02PM    #
  40. [off-topic, removed]
       —Blaine Coleman    Aug. 4 '09 - 06:26PM    #
  41. [off-topic, removed]
       —goilem    Aug. 4 '09 - 07:05PM    #
  42. [off-topic, removed]
       —Henry Brysk    Aug. 4 '09 - 07:41PM    #
  43. [off-topic, removed]
       —joumana    Aug. 4 '09 - 07:46PM    #
  44. [off-topic, removed]
       —Blaine Coleman    Aug. 4 '09 - 08:05PM    #
  45. [off-topic, removed]
       —goilem    Aug. 4 '09 - 08:32PM    #
  46. [off-topic, removed]
       —Henry Brysk    Aug. 4 '09 - 08:38PM    #
  47. [off-topic, removed]
       —Blaine Coleman    Aug. 4 '09 - 08:47PM    #
  48. “Israel has no right to tell City Council to snuff out a Palestine human rights resolution.”
    Now we are out in the open. Who is this “Israel” that is telling anyone to do anything? There is no posted comment under that name. Are you implying that anyone who disagrees with Blaine Coleman is an agent of a vast Jewish conspiracy? (Sorry, I forgot Ahmadinejad prefers to call it Zionist).

    City Council has a perfect right to reject any resolution, or to decide not to consider it. Indeed, only a Council member can introduce a resolution. No current member or candidate has shown any inclination to introduce the Coleman resolution. Why don’t you run for Council?
       —Henry Brysk    Aug. 4 '09 - 09:16PM    #
  49. [off-topic, removed]
       —goilem    Aug. 4 '09 - 09:20PM    #
  50. [off-topic, removed]
       —Blaine Coleman    Aug. 4 '09 - 09:45PM    #
  51. [off-topic, removed]
       —Henry Brysk    Aug. 4 '09 - 09:53PM    #
  52. Another argument that City Council should ignore Israel’s incineration of Gaza, because of:

    (1) Sudan,
    (2) Germany,
    (3) Frederick Douglass, and
    (4) What-Have-You.

    Yeah. Well, City Council was not asked, in the Arbor Update questionnaire, about resolutions for Sudan, Germany, or Frederick Douglass.

    Council was asked to take action against Israel, that old ally of Apartheid South Africa.

    You may remember that, 8 years after City Council boycotted Apartheid South Africa— that state was dead.

    One apartheid state down, one to go.


       —Blaine Coleman    Aug. 4 '09 - 10:02PM    #
  53. [off-topic, removed]
       —goilem    Aug. 4 '09 - 10:39PM    #
  54. [off-topic, removed]
       —Henry Brysk    Aug. 5 '09 - 12:01AM    #
  55. Blaine fails to follow the same simple logical argument that many used against the war in Iraq. The Bush administration set out some criteria to justify an action — the Saddam regime was a repressive dictatorship that controls some oil, if my memory is correct. The opposition rightly said that if we do it in Iraq, what keeps us from doing it in other repressive dictatorships that control oil. The counter-argument that we must not care about the Iraqi people did not address the issue. Bush was asking the country to support a positive action, therefore the burden of proof was on him.
    Same goes for Blaine. He’s asking the city council/coop/whomever to take a positive action against Israel. It is completely fair to ask why not in other circumstances that are significantly similar. The burden of proof is on Blaine, and questioning his argument does not constitute lack of sympathy for Palestinians. To suggest that is to put the people he’s trying to convince on the defensive, which is not a recipe for success.
    But I’m wondering something — the big fish in Ann Arbor is obviously the University of Michigan. Why not go after them? I bet they control 1,000 times the resources that the city does.


       —angry coop member    Aug. 5 '09 - 12:42AM    #
  56. [off-topic, removed]
       —Mike    Aug. 5 '09 - 01:08AM    #
  57. [off-topic, removed]
       —goilem    Aug. 5 '09 - 01:33AM    #