‘Chicago Hearing’ on Israel and U.S. values, April 18

The Chicago office of the American Friends Service Committee and various allies are organizing a public hearing on on April 18, on the important question, Does U.S. Policy on Israel and Palestine Uphold Our Values?.
Giving testimony will be ICAHD’s Jeff Halper on “Property Rights”, Jad Issac on “Freedom of Movement”, and Cindy Corrie and Amer Shurrab on “Military Aid”.
I am very honored that I’ll be moderating the event. The front-table “listeners” will be: John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, Barbara Ransby of the University of Illinois at Chicago, Rabbi Brant Rosen of Ta’anit Tzedek (Jewish Fast for Gaza), Dr. Zaher Sahloul of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago, and Ghada Talhami, professor emerita at Lake Forest College.
The local members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate have also been invited, and of course we hope they’ll all come.
This hearing can be a really important opportunity for everyone, nationwide, to hear about the real situation on the ground in occupied Palestine… from some very significant people who have studied and lived with the situation at first hand.
It will be webcast live through the Hearing website. So if you can’t make it to Chicago on the day, why not organize a listening party in your home town? Hook up your computer to a big screen, break out a bowl or two of hommos, and watch the hearing together. I’m sure it’ll be a great event.
(Big thanks to the AFSC-Chicago folks for organizing it!)

11 thoughts on “‘Chicago Hearing’ on Israel and U.S. values, April 18”

  1. Your list of panelists does not appear to be at all balanced. Form their book “The Israel Lobby”, it is quite clear that John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago does not think Israel does. From your descriptions of the other panelists it’s obvious that the other panel members think the same way.
    There’s nothing wrong with that, the panel can be made up by whomever the sponsors wish. My comment is only to point out that the question mark at the end of the discussion title “Does U.S. Policy on Israel and Palestine Uphold Our Values?” isn’t really a question. It’s already been decided by the panel makeup.

  2. Well, yeah, David, a hearing put on by a peace & values religion (as opposed to other kinds) regarding “occupied Palestine” is by definition not going to be kind to oppression.
    But is there some righteous value in oppressing people by taking their land, killing them and and treating them like animals? No. That’s why the UN General Assembly has censured Israel hundreds of times, without result.
    One reason that Israel has been able to get away with it is because the US media has given short shrift to the inequities in Palestine. This hearing is needed to help to right that imbalance.

  3. I am a great supporter of Palestinian rights and I believe that the answer to the question is clearly a resounding NO! Nonetheless, I must agree with David here. If it is to be truly a panel discussing the issue, the other side, at least the more responsible elements of it, should be represented. That has always been a virtue of this blog. It has always permitted the other side to present responsible views and I often learn something valuable and useful. Otherwise, as in this panel, you end up merely preaching to the choir.(Of course there are also the hasbaristas and ranters to avoid)

  4. Sorry, “the other side” gets thrown at the US public all the time. It doesn’t need even more exposure, and it surely doesn’t deserve legitimacy from AFSC.

  5. I think some have missed my point. The sponsors can have anyone they want, they are not bound by any moral, ethical or legal reasons to present a “balanced” panel. My only point was that the question mark in the title was misleading. The answer is obvious from the panel.
    If it was a panel made up of Daniel Pipes, Dick Cheney and David Horwitz to discuss “Has Israel done all it can to bring about peace?”, wouldn’t you think the same about the question mark?

  6. Okay, so the average thinking person will say that this question, when taken in the context in which it is presented, is obviously more than a yes/no question. The “no” answer being obvious, as David rightly states, the question is really an invitation for these experts to describe how US I/P policy does not uphold our values. I don’t think most people will have a problem with that.
    The alternative is to title it How Does US policy not meet our values, which wouldn’t work.
    There may, in fact, be some aspects of US policy that DO uphold our values, and if so that too will come out of the hearing.
    I’m guessing that hearing Rabbi Rosen alone will be worth the price of admission, and the others too. In any case the objective (apparently) is a full presentation of the facts as seen by Palestinian advocates and not a simpleton yes/no.
    Again, the “yes” rationale is thrown at us every day by the bought-and-paid-for politicians and their media friends. We’re not getting all the facts from the traditional media, so this kind of hearing — whatever it’s called — is essential.

  8. My point is simply this – how many Israel supporters (except to heckle or harass)or even open minded people are interested in a forum which is entirely one sided? True our side is seldom presented, but it would be nice to attract people who are, as yet, undecided, or uninformed but interested, or willing to listen to views other than their own. The one sided nature of the list insures that will not happen. Yes, it is nice to hear support for our views, but it seems like a wasted opportunity to reach a wider audience.

  9. Ny answer would have to be Yes, US policy on Israel Palestine does uphold the values of the State and is wholly consistent with its history.
    The same can be said of Canada, whose current government has brought our middle eastern policy into conformity with the long traditions of the Indian Act, racism and outright cheating not only of indigenous peoples but of loyalist allies such as the Six Nations.ASnd most recently of Haitians.
    What our governments are supporting in Palestine is pretty much what their predecessors carried out in the eighteenth and nineteenth (and most of the twentieth) centuries.
    Put aside the racist nonsense, (albeit innocent childish nonsense when first bruited), to the effect that Israel’s Jewish colonists are simply returning from a long exile and what you have left is ethbic cleansing, genocide, the Old Testament and a fascist movement whose European origins can be traced back through the Old South, Wouunded Knee and those stern faced Puritans who also worked their wonders in Ulster.
    What US policy does not exemplify are the values of the majority who never have been asked; not, that is, since the days of Gene Debs. Instead they’ve been tricked by les clercs, famous for treason. The intellectual clerisy who brought us Pinochet, El Salvador’s death squads, the Contras and much much more. And, miost recently polite applause for the white phosphorous illuminated spectacles of Fallujah and Gaza.
    The guy who is really missing from this panel is the famous Rev Wright, also of Chicago, hustled off stage for his take on American values.

  11. In 1948, Apartheid laws institutionalized racial discrimination in South Africa & denied human rights to 25 million Black citizens of South Africa. In 1948, the Arab League of Nations applied the Apartheid model toPalestine, and declared that Jews must be denied rights as citizens ofI srael, while declaring a total state of war to eradicate the new Jewish entity, a war that continues today. In 1948, at the directive of the Arab League of Nations, Jordan devastated the vestiges of Jewish life from Judea and Samaria, and burned all schules in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem. In 1948, member states of the Arab League of Nations began to strip the human rights of Jews and to expel entire Jewish communities whohad resided in their midst for centuries In the mid 1960’s, The Arab League of Nations spawned the PLO toorganize local residents to continue the war to deny Jewish rights theright to live as free citizens in the land of Israel – well before Israel took over Judea, Samaria, and the Old City of Jerusalem in thedefensive war waged by Israel in 1967. And since its inception in 1994, the newly constituted Palestinian Authority, created by the PLO, has prepared the rudiments of aPalestinian State, modeled on the rules of Apartheid andinstitutionalized discrimination:
    1. The right of Palestinian Arab refugees and their descendents to return to Arab villages lost in 1948 will be protected by the new Palestinian state.
    2. While 20% of Israel’s citizens are Arabs, not one Jew will be allowed to live in a Palestinian State
    3. Anyone who sells land to a Jew will be liable to the death penalty in the Palestinian State
    4. Those who murder Jews are honored on all official Palestinian media outlets.
    5. Palestinian Authority maps prepared for the Palestinian State depict all of Palestine under Palestinian rule
    6. PA maps of Jerusalem for the Palestinian State once again delete the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem 7. Recent PA documents claim all of Jerusalem for the future Palestinian State.
    8. The right of Jewish access to Jewish holy places is to be denied inthe new Palestinian State.
    9. The Draft Palestinian State Constitution denies juridical status to any religion except for Islam.
    10. No system which protects human rights or civil liberties will exist in a Palestinian State If that is not a formula for a totalitarian apartheid state ofP alestine, then what is?

Comments are closed.