---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tikkun <[email protected]> Date: Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 6:26 AM Subject: Support Wisconsin Public Workers--here's why! plus US again undermined the Palestinians by rejecting a UN resolution to halt Wes To: [email protected] <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=X3O9pNgd0l4aOyr3jhivRLN6Tbz5K15n> *Support Wisconsin Public Workers--here's why! plus US again undermined the Palestinians by rejecting a UN resolution to halt West Bank settlements; plus Steve Zunes on the Egyptian Uprising* If you prefer to read the articles ONLINE on why we should support Wisconsin public workers, please go to Josh Healey's article at www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/ <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Y27vEvB8hwADSg%2BpbMxelbN6Tbz5K15n>and if you prefer to read the articles online by M.J. Rosenberg on the undermining of Palestinians by the Obama Administration that happened once again today when the US vetoed a UN resolution calling on Israel to halt settlement expansions on the West Bank, read it online at "Current Thinking" section on the home page at www.tikkun.org.<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=LbXq3%2FVisHcHS6l2G6%2BvJ7N6Tbz5K15n>And if you'd prefer to read online some new thoughts on the Egyptian Uprising by our contributing editor Steve Zunes, please go to the Current Thinking section of our home page www.tikkun.org<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=H%2BU1FoODb2ctKhRNMosBWLN6Tbz5K15n>. All these important articles appear below if you are happy to read it on your email like many of us are! Editor's note*: The destruction of public sector unions in Wisconsin will directly undermine your economic well-being in the years to come. Almost all of us who are not rich have for decades derived hidden benefits from the ability of unions to set wages at a level that makes it possible for a middle class family with two workers to make a decent living. Their actions have a ripple effect that goes all the way up and down the class ladder. If the unions are smashed, don't be surprised if your job options and pay diminish dramatically in this decade. And that's only one of many reasons to not allow the forces that wish to take care of the needs of America's elties of wealth and power first before they care about the rest of us **to get away with destoying public sector employees**--and these forces are in both major political parties and demonstrably in the Obama Administration as well. There's also the reason of pure "justice, justice shalt thou pursue." *--Rabbi Michael Lerner P.S. Have you registered yet for the Tikkun 25th Anniversary celebration March 11-14, or sent a donation in honor of Tikkun's work? If not, please do it now at www.tikkun.org/celebrate or call 510 644 1200 between 9:30-5 p.m. Mondays to Fridays (Pacific Standard Time). Class Warfare in Wisconsin: 10 Things You Should Know<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=21QQzepJc2yGBitrBI4onLN6Tbz5K15n> *By Josh Healey* <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=xxjSsBk1ZUnuUV0LP1GdD7N6Tbz5K15n>For most of the last decade, I lived in the crazy, cold, contradictory state that is Wisconsin. I wrote research papers in Madison, performed poems in Milwaukee, walked picket lines in Jefferson, organized student conferences in Eau Claire, led artistic workshops in Green Bay, spoke at my roommate’s wedding in Merrill, and went camping with my future wife at Black River Falls. A big-city kid from the East Coast, I never fully got used to the overwhelming whiteness of Wisconsin – the winter, and yes, the people. But I eventually learned how to wear five layers in February, and that amidst the farms and abandoned factories, there was a working-class people with a strong populist ethic. As my freshman roommate from Wausau once told me, “Josh, I don’t follow politics. I just hate corporations.” Fast-forward to 2011: the new Republican Governor, *Scott Walker*, has declared war on my old roommate and all Wisconsin workers. Under the guise of a budget deficit, Walker just put forth a bill that would destroy the unions that represent teachers, social workers, and over 100,000 public employees. He’s also making huge cuts to schools, health care, public transportation, and anything that actually helps people live. Want more crazy? Walker ordered the National Guard to get ready to respond to a strike or any resistance to his plan. The last time Wisconsin called in the National Guard was way back in 1886<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=STACfFk%2FTwqTqs6vRC9qFrN6Tbz5K15n>, when they shot on a rally of Milwaukee workers advocating an 8-hour work day. Five unarmed workers were killed in the massacre. I loved living in Wisconsin. Truth be told, I hated it many times too, especially when its ugly side came out, like now. I was fighting this same struggle<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=vp17FB2pujp%2FCwGyKpAP4LN6Tbz5K15n>during most of my junior and senior years at UW. Our campaign demands were nothing new: lower tuition for students, better health care for workers, higher taxes on the rich, and a real investment in public education over private incarceration. That was with Jim Doyle in office. But now with this dude Walker, it’s at a whole new level. Of course, the people aren’t going down without a fight. There have been unprecedented demonstrations<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=mTy8R76Nk4%2FVXOFhaTsSAbN6Tbz5K15n>at the state Capitol in Madison every day this week – from 1,000 the first day to over 25,000 yesterday. I wish I could be out there on State Street with my Badgers in the struggle, but at the very least, I can do my best to spread the word. So for all my old students and roommates taking to the streets, and for everyone else wondering what the hell is going on in America’s Dairyland, let’s clear some things up: *1. The deficit is a made-up crisis.* Like most states, Wisconsin is struggling in the recession, but the state government isn’t actually broke<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=ouOldn9rSuQxgFmlM9hgS7N6Tbz5K15n>. The state legislature’s fiscal bureau estimated the state would end the year with a $121 million balance. Walker claims there is a $137 million deficit – but it is not because of an increase in worker wages or benefits. According to the *Capital Times*, it is because “Walker and his allies pushed through $140 million in new spending for corporate and special-interest groups in January.” Nice. A man-made “crisis” as an excuse to push neoliberal cutbacks: *Shock Doctrine*, anyone? *2. Even if there was a deficit, blame Wall Street – not the workers.* The economy isn’t crumbling because state workers in Madison have decent pensions. It’s because Wall Street bankers stole our money, Bush and now Obama have us in two trillion-dollar wars, and states like Wisconsin keep spending more on prisons than schools. What do the rich pay? According to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, corporate tax income has fallen by half since 1981 and over two-thirds of Wisconsin corporations pay zero taxes<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=z5gW3oIX8IxVKbhg9OLWvPOQ08Kzr2qw> . *<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=VXnFfcsL7G9Wh7HOcBvWWbN6Tbz5K15n>3. The Green Bay Packers are with the people.* They won the Super Bowl. They’re owned by the people of Green Bay, not some schmuck billionaire. And now the Pack is standing in solidarity<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=yM8PyOKTCGfZhWydv8d3QrN6Tbz5K15n>with their union brothers and sisters. If only Brady Poppinga (pictured at right) would tackle Scott Walker like that. If the green and gold are down, you already know what side to roll with. (I heard Walker is a Vikings fan, anyway.) *4. This is not “just another Madison protest.”* Madison is famous for its progressive tradition, but this is more than just another march down State Street. This struggle is engaging people across the state – not just Madison and Milwaukee, but LaCrosse<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=%2FbApSNv10OkGWXqibc9%2BirN6Tbz5K15n>, Eau Claire<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=363FsZDd0fNLNPE2ZPIvtrN6Tbz5K15n>, and outside Gov. Walker’s home in Wauwatosa<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=EN%2BJYDG9RVnkz8p2z3yio7N6Tbz5K15n>. This struggle is multi-racial, multi-generational, and multi-issue. Working- and middle-class white folks (the majority population) might finally realize that long-term unity is stronger than short-term tax relief. Looking for the progressive antidote to the Tea Party? They’re brewing something in the Badger State. *5. Public worker unions were founded in Wisconsin.* The first union for public employees was actually started in Madison<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=JsKi9L1eR5zf37bNLi767LN6Tbz5K15n>in 1932, to ensure living wages for the workers and end political patronage for government jobs. The biggest public union, AFSCME<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=BaY%2FxOJQ3danRc%2BVxTJDJbN6Tbz5K15n>, was born right where the protests are happening today in Madison. Wisconsin has always had a dual legacy – home to the last Socialist mayor in the country (Frank Zeidler of Milwaukee) and the ultimate anti-Communist himself, Joe McCarthy; more recently, both progressive Sen. Russ Feingold and immigrant-basher Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner – but the Dairyland’s populist ethos can be traced back to the Progressive Era and its public unions. *6. Hurting public workers will not help you get a better job.* Many conservatives, and even some liberals, argue that we need to “bring public workers’ benefits down to the level of private workers.” First off, it’s not true that public workers are better off – they usually get lower wages in exchange for better benefits. More important, though, is the idea that we should raise all boats, rather than continue this race to the bottom. Russ Feingold said yesterday that “Republicans are trying to pit private workers against their public counterparts.” No more divide and conquer. Yes, people with a private-sector job (or, people who like 50% of black men in Milwaukee don’t have a job<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=7x8uS1f9zMEaZH4OtLpeFbN6Tbz5K15n>at all) have a right to be angry: but that anger should be reserved for the companies who are downsizing and outsourcing those jobs, not for middle school teachers and the lunch lady. *7. This is about more than unions.* This is about public education, affirmative action, immigrant rights, stopping foreclosures, and basic human rights. This is about how much the Radical Right thinks they can get away with. This is about drawing a line in the sand – if first they come for the unions<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=ZxealZNz9yuGv9QCelWleVv5%2BSBNgMZa>, who will they come for next? *8. The country is watching Wisconsin.* What happens this week in Madison has national ramifications. Right now, everyone’s eyes are on Wisconsin. The governor of Ohio and Tennessee are threatening to adopt similar legislation – and Obama has his own conservative budget proposal<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=tdLccvzTdww5Q4c4JNP%2F47N6Tbz5K15n>at the federal level. If they can force it through relatively liberal Wisconsin, your state could be next. *9. Wisconsin was watching Egypt.* News travels fast, and uprisings inspire each other across continents. The protesters out on the Madison streets watched the millions of Egyptians who successfully, nonviolently took down their dictator. Many of them are now carrying signs like the one below calling Scott Walker “the Mubarak of the Midwest.” And while the American media loves the union workers that toppled a dictator in Egypt<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=IfcY9u3HH11GnyEDBh1RH7N6Tbz5K15n>, CNN has little sympathy for the workers that will be silenced right here in the heartland. <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Sf6vttPLnWhA%2Bg4baYh1l7N6Tbz5K15n> *10. Who’s Capitol? OUR Capitol!* This is our moment. Our state. Our growing movement to change the course of the country. The legislature could vote as soon as today on Walker’s bill – unless the real Badgers stand up to stop him. The protests are escalating every day, inside and outside the Capitol. To all my Madison folks, stay strong and know that we’re with you. To the rest of the country, spread the word, donate to the legal defense funds, and make sure your own states don’t go down this same road. For resources and up-to-date info on what’s happening on the ground, check out: AFT-Wisconsin<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=bwdf3XOOV6oDA27STaEAH7N6Tbz5K15n> Teaching Assistants’ Association <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=zUFZlFIZZ%2FB5Bqt8KY%2FXa7N6Tbz5K15n> Student Labor Action Coalition <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=r7%2BSMA0sTm7jEMsPJ9yeS7N6Tbz5K15n> On, Wisconsin! Solidarity Forever! *Josh Healey is a writer, an organizer, and the author of * Hammertime: Poems and Possibilities *. Featured by the * New York Times *, NPR, and Al-Jazeera, he lives in Oakland, California, and works with Youth Speaks to empower young artists and activists. He has written for Tikkun about Justice in Jerusalem <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=pyByWe2XMhafFioUK6%2BZkbN6Tbz5K15n>and Invincible, the Detroit hip-hop emcee.<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=yM8PyOKTCGffjbZqgr3QQ7N6Tbz5K15n>This piece was crossposted from his blog<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Bvwepo6KoMZfAVokiNIh9bN6Tbz5K15n> .* If people want to send donations, you can direct them to www.workerjustice.org ******************************************************************************************************************************************************* Editor's Note: The decision to veto a UN resolution challenging Israel's building of more settlements in the West Bank, building that "officially" the U.S. opposes, is one more way of hurting the chances for peace. It's not such a surprise--once the Obama Administration decided to stay true to the traditions of our State Department from the Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush days, it gives priority to the wishes of the Christian Zionists and AIPAC--at the expense of the continued suffering of the Palestinian people. M.J. Rosenberg analyzes it, and then the news story of the US actually vetoing the resolution confirms it. What seems obvious (and sadly disappointing) is that the initial promise of the Obama Administration for a more balanced position in the Israel/Palestine conflict (a balance that actually would be more in Israel's long-term interest than capitulating to the self-destructive policies of the Netanyahu government) has been abandoned. It makes no more sense in this situation for anyone concerned about peace to focus on gently nudging the Obama Administration to live up to its promise on Middle East matters. Instead, it must be publicly and unequivocally challenged *Now We Are Bullying The Palestinians* by MJ Rosenberg It appears that U.S. dealings with the Palestinians have entered a new phase: bullying. On Thursday, President Obama telephoned Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas to urge him to block a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning settlements. Obama pressed very hard during the 50-minute call, so hard that Abbas felt compelled to agree to take Obama's request to the PLO executive committee (which, not surprisingly, agreed that Abbas should not accede to Obama's request). But what a request it is! For Palestinians, Israeli settlements are the very crux of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After all, it is the gobbling up of the land by settlements that is likely to prevent a Palestinian state from ever coming into being. Asking the Palestinian leader to oppose a resolution condemning them is like asking the Israeli prime minister to drop Israel's claim to the Israeli parts of Jerusalem. In fact, the U.S. request for a mere 90-day settlement freeze (a request sweetened with an offer of $3.5 billion in extra aid) outraged the Netanyahu government. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu couldn't even bring himself to respond (probably figuring that he'll get the extra money whenever he wants it anyway). The administration then acted as if it never made the request at all, so eager is it to not offend Netanyahu in any way. But it's a different story with Palestinians, for obvious reasons (they have no political clout in Washington). Even when they ask the U.N. to support them on settlements, the administration applies heavy pressure. But why so much pressure? After all, it's a big deal when the president calls a foreign leader and, to be honest, the head of the Palestinian Authority is not exactly the president of France or prime minister of Canada. The reason Obama made that call is that he was almost desperate to avoid vetoing the United Nations Security Council Resolution condemning illegal Israeli settlements. And it's not hard to see why. Given the turbulence in the Middle East, and the universal and strong opposition in the Arab and Muslim world to U.S. vacillating on settlements, the last thing the administration wants to do is veto a resolution condemning them. That is especially true with this resolution, sponsored by 122 nations, which embodies long-stated U.S. policies. All U.S. interests dictate either support for the resolution or at least abstention. But the administration rejected that approach, knowing that if it supported the resolution, AIPAC would go ballistic, along with its House and Senate (mostly House) cutouts. (Here are some of them issuing warnings already.) Then the calls would start coming in from AIPAC-connected donors who would warn that they will not support the president's re-election if he does not veto. And Prime Minister Netanyahu would do to President Obama what he did to former President Clinton — work with the Republicans (his favorite is former Speaker Newt Gingrich) to bring Obama down. What was an administration to do? It did not want to veto but was afraid not to. Earlier in the week, it floated a plan which would have the Security Council mildly criticize settlements in a statement (not a resolution). According to Foreign Policy, the statement: "...expresses its strong opposition to any unilateral actions by any party, which cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations and will not be recognized by the international community, and reaffirms, that it does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, which is a serious obstacle to the peace process." The statement also condemns "all forms of violence, including rocket fire from Gaza, and stresses the need for calm and security for both peoples." Did you notice where settlements are mentioned? Read slowly. It's there. Reading the language, it is not hard to guess where the statement was drafted. Rather than simply address settlements, it throws in such AIPAC-pleasing irrelevancies (in this context) as "rocket fire from Gaza," which has absolutely nothing to do with West Bank settlements. In other words, it reads like an AIPAC-drafted House resolution, although it does leave out the "hooray for Israel" boilerplate, which is standard in Congress but the Security Council is unlikely to go for. All this to avoid vetoing a resolution which expresses U.S. policy. Needless to say, the U.S. plan went nowhere. Hypocrisy only carries the day when it isn't transparent. As I wrote earlier this week, this is what happens when donors and not diplomats are driving U.S. policy. It's too bad that they don't care that they are making the United States look like Netanyahu's puppet in front of the entire world. From Ha'aretz Friday, Feb. 18th 2011 U.S. veto thwarts UN resolution condemning settlements Palestinian Authority leadership brought draft resolution against Israeli settlements to the UN security council, despite pressure from the U.S. to withdraw it. By Shlomo Shamir<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=D8gas4UjytMlJE0wR6tdvrN6Tbz5K15n>, Natasha Mozgovaya<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=kl2R7%2Fq24nJ0FEmLtPOtSLN6Tbz5K15n>, Barak Ravid<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=3cCMYyyjSKAmdq5A38xp1rN6Tbz5K15n>and Haaretz Service The United States on Friday voted against a United Nations Security Council draft resolution that would have condemned Israeli settlements as illegal. The veto by the U.S., a permanent council member, prevented the resolution from being adopted. The other 14 Security Council members voted in favor of the draft resolution. But the U.S., as one of five permanent council members with the power to block any action by the Security Council, struck it down. The resolution had nearly 120 co-sponsors, exclusively Arab and other non-aligned nations. The Obama administration's veto is certain to anger Arab countries and Palestinian supporters around the world. The U.S. opposes new Israeli settlements but says taking the issue to the UN will only complicate efforts to resume stalled negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians on a two-state solution. Palestinians say continued settlement building flouts the internationally-backed peace plan that will permit them to create a viable, contiguous state on the land after a treaty with Israel to end its occupation and 62 years of conflict. Israel says this is an excuse for avoiding peace talks and a precondition never demanded before during 17 years of negotiation, which has so far produced no agreement. Hundreds of Palestinian protesters rallied in support of the UN vote on Friday near Ramallah displaying banners demanding: "Veto settlements. Vote justice". [image: UN headquarters AP October 12, 2010] United Nations General Assembly Hall on Oct. 12, 2010. Photo by: AP ********************************************************************************************************* Our thanks to Stephen Zunes for this piece, exclusive to *Tikkun*. *Stephen Zunes is a professor of politics and chair of Middle Eastern studies at the University of San Francisco and serves as a contributing editor of Tikkun. His most recent book, co-authored with Jacob Mundy, is *Western Sahara: War, Nationalism, and Conflict Irresolution* (Syracuse University Press, 2010.)* Mubarak's Ouster: Good for Egypt, Good for Israel *By Stephen Zunes * The inspiring triumph of the Egyptian people in the nonviolent overthrow of the hated dictator Hosni Mubarak is a real triumph of the human spirit. While there will likely be continued struggle in order to insure that the military junta will allow for a real democratic transition, the mobilization of Egypt's civil society and the empowerment of millions of workers, students, intellectuals and others in the cause of freedom will be difficult to contain. It is disappointing, then, that what should be a near-universal celebration comparable to what greeted the nonviolent overthrows of authoritarian regimes in the Philippines, Czechoslovakia, Chile, Serbia and elsewhere has been tempered by the right-wing Netanyahu government in Israel and its supporters in the United States who oppose Egypt's democratic revolution. Israel's standing among democrats in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world has no doubt suffered as a result of the Israeli government's outspoken support for Mubarak and opposition to the pro-democracy struggle during the Egyptian dictatorship's final weeks. Indeed, the very assumption that the continued suffering of 82 million Egyptians under a corrupt and brutal authoritarian regime was somehow less important than the possible negative ramifications of democratic change for five and half million Israeli Jews smacks of racism. In reality, Israel has nothing to worry about. While sympathy for the Palestinian cause runs deep among ordinary Egyptians, it is hardly the principal focus of the Mubarak regime's opponents, who are demanding political freedom and economic justice. Unlike the movement which overthrew the Shah of Iran in 1979, Egypt's movement is overwhelmingly secular, their civil society is much stronger, the country's intellectuals and business class are far more open to the West, and there is no religious hierarchy with control over vast networks of resources. The overwhelming role played by religious forces in Iran contrasts with the demonstrations, strikes, and other actions in Egypt, which has been led from the outset by secular youth through the Internet and other means of communication. The slogans, communiqués, banners, graffiti, tweets, and Facebook messages have been almost exclusively secular in orientation, pushing nationalistic and liberal democratic themes. And, despite decades of U.S. support for the Mubarak dictatorship, the Egyptian protests have featured virtually no explicit anti-American or anti-Israel overtones, a striking contrast with the Iranian revolution. Indeed, the protests have almost exclusively focused on Mubarak's misrule rather than the U.S. role in enabling it. Although most of the Egyptian protesters are presumably practicing Muslims, they show no desire to establish an Islamic state, which was an explicit demand of much of the Iranian revolution's leading activists from the beginning of the struggle. The Muslim Brotherhood - which represents at most about 25% or the population - still embraces a tiresome anti-Israel rhetoric, but the current generation in leadership are also pragmatists who have renounced violence and condemned terrorism. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, who had been a Muslim Brotherhood activist as a teenager and much later went on to co-found Al-Qaeda, has denounced the Brotherhood precisely for its "betrayal" of what he claimed were "Islamic principles" because they - among other things - "acknowledge the existence of the Jews." In a democratic election, the Muslim Brotherhood would likely win scores of seats in the 454-member lower house and could even conceivably be a junior partner in a coalition government. But its political orientation would not be much different from the legal conservative Muslim-identified parties currently in the Jordanian and Moroccan parliaments or even the ruling Justice and Development Party in Turkey. Indeed, the Muslim Brotherhood would likely be more moderate and more committed to the democratic process than some of the hard-line fundamentalist Jewish parties in the current ruling coalition government of Israel. More importantly, the Muslim Brotherhood - like virtually all Egyptians, in particular the armed forces - recognizes that Israel cannot be defeated militarily. Egypt fought four wars with Israel between 1948 and 1973 and lost each one badly at considerable costs; the military balance is even more skewed in Israel's favor today. Similarly, support for terrorist groups would invite devastating Israeli military reprisals. Allowing arms, rocketry, or other weapons to Hamas militia could provoke another disastrous military confrontation with Israel which would likely spill over to Egyptian territory. With so many desperate economic and other domestic problems to deal with in a post-Mubarak era, the last thing Egyptians would support is a war with a powerful neighbor they would surely lose. Military aid and cooperation with the United States, as well as the badly needed economic assistance, would end if Egypt threatened war or supported terrorism. And, while there has long been popular opposition to the Camp David Accord, the disagreement has generally not been because it made peace with Israel. To most Egyptians, the 1978 peace agreement was problematic for other reasons: One was that the agreement did not address the plight of the Palestinians or create a comprehensive peace. Just months after Israelis withdrew their troops from a now-demilitarized Sinai Peninsula and no longer having to worry about their southern flank, Israel launched its devastating 1982 war on Lebanon. With the Arab world's largest and most powerful armed forces no longer able to play a deterrent role, Israel has subsequently been emboldened to launch a series of large-scale military incursions into Lebanon, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip; colonize much of the West Bank to the verge of making the establishment of a viable Palestinian state impossible; and place 1.5 million Palestinians of the Gaza Strip (administered by Egypt between 1948 and 1967) under a draconian siege with devastating humanitarian consequences. As a result, Mubarak was seen as an accomplice to Israeli militarism, unilateralism, and oppression. A second objection was that the agreement included what was essentially a tripartite military pact. While most peace agreements historically have resulted in demilitarization, the Camp David agreement instead led to dramatically increased U.S. arms transfers to both Israel and Egypt totaling $5 billion a year. This costs the Egyptians greatly, since - while the military hardware came courtesy of U.S. taxpayers - it ended up costing Egyptians billions of dollars in terms of additional personnel, training, and spare parts. Furthermore, this aid included training and equipment in domestic political repression, mostly used against nonviolent pro-democracy advocates. The agreement also led to large-scale U.S. economic penetration and the privatization of public assets to wealthy well-connected Egyptian elites and multinational corporations, which further resulted in growing inequality and corruption. Contrary to popular belief in the West, Mubarak's predecessor Anwar Sadat was not assassinated for having made peace with Israel. All indications are that his assassins - part of an underground extremist Islamist group - were far more upset about his domestic repression and opening the country up to Western influence than the peace treaty with Israel. Indeed, the assassin's cry, "I have killed Pharaoh" - the same moniker given Mubarak by his critics for his autocratic condescending rule - is hardly indicative of an obsession with Israel. Ironically, most of the prominent American pundits and politicians claiming that the overthrow of the Mubarak dictatorship would threaten Israel are the very politicians who have encouraged Israel's wars on civilian populations in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip and other policies which have helped create extremist elements that really do threaten Israel. Similarly, those now claiming that Egypt's nonviolent indigenous struggle against Mubarak will result in a repressive Iranian-backed anti-Israel fundamentalist regime are some of the very people who supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq -- which has resulted in a repressive Iranian-backed anti-Israel fundamentalist regime. Pro-Mubarak politicians - be they Republicans like Senator John McCain, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Ilana Ros-Lehtinen, or former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, or Democrats like Senator Dianne Feinstein or Representatives Howard Berman and Gary Ackerman - appear committed to continuing the policies of divide and rule between the Semitic cousins of the Middle East. From providing military aid to rhetorical support, they continue to support the suppression of pro-democracy movements in the Middle East only to then insist the United States has to back the rightist Netanyahu government because Israel is "the sole democracy in the Middle East." As much a protection racket as a self-fulfilling prophecy, their support for the militarization of the region and their backing of tyrannical regimes appears designed to reinforce their insistence that because Israel is surrounded by authoritarian regimes, close cooperation between the rightist expansionist camp in Israel and the United States military is necessary in order for the Jewish state survive. With Israel as its surrogate, it enhances the U.S. military presence in the critical region of the Middle East. One cost of U.S. support for authoritarian Arab regimes is that it provides yet another rationalization for blaming the Jews. President Barack Obama's delay in coming around to support Egypt's pro-democracy movement - though largely the fault of pressure from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and other hawks in the foreign policy establishment - was instead widely blamed on the Israeli government and "the Israel Lobby." Meanwhile, the Mubarak regime - supposedly a friend of Israel - was claiming that the protesters and the foreign journalists who were covering them were part of an Israeli plot; pro-democracy demonstrators, human rights monitors and journalists attacked by Mubarak's goons were routinely subjected to anti-Semitic epithets. For decades, Arab dictators - now joined by the autocratic Iranian regime - have used Israel as an excuse for their militarization and authoritarianism, cynically manipulating the Palestinian cause for their own ends. Democratic systems, however, are usually far less likely to give in to such scapegoating and paranoia. Virtually all of the largely nonviolent civil insurrections around the world over the past three decades have led to democratic governance and moderate secular leadership. There is little reason to suspect Egypt would be different. Such nonviolent revolutions require the building of broad coalitions that help encourage pluralism and compromise, empower ordinary people, and build civil society. This creates not just political change but fundamental social change of the kind that has the will and the means to resist potential encroachments against newfound democratic institutions and individual liberties and disingenuous efforts to mobilize support for aggressive war. As a result, there is little chance Egypt would abrogate Egypt's 1978 peace agreement with Israel or threaten armed conflict. However, a democratic Egyptian government would likely be more outspoken in support of the Palestinian cause and in opposition to the current right-wing Israeli government. A democratic Egypt would likely ease the blockade of food, medicines and other humanitarian goods into the besieged Gaza Strip. Egypt would presumably mobilize its diplomatic clout to try to pressure the Obama administration to go beyond words in blocking Israel's illegal colonization of occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Taking such positions does not threaten Israel, however. Indeed, these are the very steps that are necessary for making peace. The emergence of an Arab democratic order that is assertive against the occupation, while not threatening Israel militarily, could help galvanize the Israeli peace movement and other opponents of the Israeli occupation. As Kai Bird, writing in *Foreign Policy*, noted, "the emergence of an Arab democratic polity should convince Israeli voters that their leaders have become too complacent and too isolationist. After Tahrir, a majority of Israelis may conclude that they can't live in the neighborhood without forging a real peace with their neighbors." What we have seen between Israel and Egypt for the past 33 years has been a cold peace, based upon a Pax Americana, arms transfers, and dictatorial rule. What the region needs is a real peace, made by the democratic governments representing the peoples of the affected countries, based upon international law, self-determination, and human rights. *************************** Register now for the 25th Anniversary Celebration of Tikkun Magazine www.tikkun.org/celebrate<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=epJ40zrHAhqAaIWgyel5sLN6Tbz5K15n> ------------------------------ web: www.spiritualprogressives.org<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=wXVlDCmd%2FxUZ5OdAXMQlf7N6Tbz5K15n> email: [email protected] Click here to unsubscribe<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=tjsTvrajhVqBORyzqeOYmLN6Tbz5K15n> ------------------------------ Copyright © 2010 Network of Spiritual Progressives®. 2342 Shattuck Avenue, #1200 Berkeley, CA 94704 510-644-1200 Fax 510-644-1255 [image: empowered by Salsa] <http://www.salsalabs.com/?email> -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/