[P2P-F] Fwd: Support Wisconsin Public Workers--here's why! plus US again undermined the Palestinians by rejecting a UN resolution to halt Wes

[Michel Bauwens]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tikkun <info at spiritualprogressives.org>
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: Michelsub2004 at gmail.com


     <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: info at spiritualprogressives.org
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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20110219/aabd66d5/attachment.htm