How the Zionists Subvert the American Antiwar Movement
by Ken Freeland
(founding member of Houston Coalition for Justice Not War and only participant
in the Assembly from Texas)
Background:
The National Assembly and its Call
On 28-29 July, 2008, a “national assembly to end the Iraq
war” was held in the Crowne Plaza Hotel in downtown Cleveland, Ohio. The
Assembly had been promoted through the grapevine, and had been advertised as an
attempt to restore unity to a divided and moribund peace movement (which under
its current national leadership had failed to make any significant national
public response to this year's anniversary of the war against Iraq). Activists
were told that anyone could register and participate in the Assembly, that
everyone attending would have the right to vote, and that decisions would be
made democratically. The organization I represented had been alienated by the
undemocratic machinations and Zionist-friendly politics of an earlier attempt to
unite the peace movement, the United For Peace and Justice leadership, and had
disassociated from UFPJ early on, and this motivated my journey to Cleveland. I
was eager to find out if the antiwar movement was finally going to engender a
genuinely democratic vehicle to coordinate itself, and also whether this vehicle
would be capable of at long last recognizing the centrality of the Palestinian
issue to the antiwar movement, and the culpability of the Zionist lobby in
fomenting the wars we oppose.
The organizers of the Assembly stated at several points
that they were using the National Peace Action Coalition of the Vietnam antiwar
movement as their model. In many ways, this appeared to be the case: Those
old enough to remember NPAC recall that while everyone had voice and vote at
NPAC meetings, the decision as to major tactics for the movement were a foregone
conclusion, mass demonstrations, and the best any alternative approach to
stopping the War could hope for was honorable mention. That this approach was
to be recapitulated by the Assembly was evidenced by the pre-Assembly meeting
held Friday night, 27 July, by its Coordinating Committee of the Assembly.
While this self-appointed and entirely unrepresentative committee took care of a
few housekeeping issues as we might expect, its primary focus was an intense
debate over the best dates to recommend to the Assembly for nationally
coordinated mass antiwar demonstrations. When I say it was unrepresentative, I
do not mean that the usual suspects were not there from a number of major
national antiwar organizations (UFPJ, ANSWER, Troops Out Now, etc.). What I
mean is that not every participant in the conference had the ability to
participate or be represented by someone at this important pre-meeting, and this
gave a mighty big edge on this poignant question of a date for national
mobilization (and as we shall see later, on several other more political
questions) to those who were among the chosen few. And as we shall also see
later, this “we're all equal here, but some are more equal than others” approach
to decision making would come back to destroy the integrity and democratic
process of the Assembly later on.
A Belated
Victory for the Palestinian Cause
As its first order of business, the Coordinating Committee
proposed rules of order for the Assembly: Roberts Rules of Order. These were
adopted by the Assembly with a few special rules added. In the spirit of its
NPAC model, the organizers had decreed beforehand that only one “comprehensive”
action proposal could be adopted by the assembly. Since the omnibus action
proposal developed by the Coordinating Committee was the only “comprehensive”
proposal (which among other things identified mass demonstrations as the major
tactic for the antiwar movement) it was a foregone conclusion that it was going
to win the day. However, also following NPAC methodology, those whose
proposals did not win the competition were given the option to resubmit their
proposals as amendments to the winning proposal, so as to create one
all-encompassing action plan with everyone, or almost everyone, on board.
Reviewing the proposals that had been submitted in advance of the Assembly, I
had been particularly impressed by the
Palestine-centered proposal of the Middle East Crisis Committee of Connecticut,
and was able to join forces early on with its delegates Stan Heller (who
broadcasts a poignant weekly progressive news program called “The Struggle” that
is carried on some 30 local Cable Access channels) and Mazin Qumsiyeh, the prime
mover of the Wheels for Justice program, with whom I had worked previously in
Texas. Following the adoption of the Coordinating Committee's Action Proposal
by the Assembly, Stan submitted an amendment incorporating the basic principles
of the MECC's earlier proposal, consisting of several parts. All of it called
for stronger, clearer language on the issue of Palestine and its integral
relationship to the antiwar movement, in opposition to the lip-service language
proposed as an alternative by the Coordinating Committee. But it also contained
a revolutionary claim that challenged the Coordinating Committee's boilerplate
“war for oil” explanation by proposing two additional causes of the war: "the
interests of the military industrial complex and the influence of the lobbies of
Jewish and Christian Zionists."
This multi-part amendment was opposed by the Coordinating
Committee, and those of its leading members who now comprised the Presiding
Committee took turns speaking against it as it came up for vote. The three of
us agreed that Mazin should give the overall introduction, I should address the
additional causes of war, and Stan would address the rest and summarize, since
we were allowed a total of only three speakers. Here was the substance of my
remarks, which were limited to two minutes. I present here the full text of my
speech from my notes, for reasons that will become clear later:
The slogan “no war for oil”had
real resonance and organizing potential during the First Gulf War. But as a
complete explanation for the current war against Iraq it has been effectively
debunked by modern scholars, who have identified Zionist Israel as the necessary
condition of the war against Iraq. In fact, there are significant
contradictions, explicated by Jonathon Cook in his recent work “Israel and the
Clash of Civilizations,” between the current political chaos in Iraq (about
which he documents the Bush Administration was well warned before proceeding
with this war) and the expressed interests of the oil industry.
Can we possibly sell this “war
for oil” hypothesis to ordinary Americans who are daily gouged at the gas pump,
that this war has gained oil for America? And what of the promise made to them
by the war's promoters that the costs of this war would be paid for by the oil
revenues of Iraq, instead of by taxes levied on working people, indebting our
children for possibly generations to come?
If we honestly reflect, we must
recognize that the deepest divisions in the antiwar movement have been around
this issue, and the failure of the movement as a whole to openly recognize it.
This has in turn hampered our ability to recruit our natural allies,
Arab-Americans and Muslims, who have a natural, experiential understanding of
this issue, to fuller participation in the antiwar cause and therefore our
ability as organizers to mobilize. If, on the other hand, we take this
opportunity to finally lift the taboo on recognizing that the oppression of
Palestinians and the influence of the Zionist lobbies are integral parts of the
“war on terror,” not only in launching the war against Iraq, but even more
unarguably in pushing the impending war against Iran, it will go far to begin
healing this breach, a necessary step if we really hope to unify our divided
antiwar movement.
Stan Heller's speech, which followed mine, concluded with a
rousing call for a “fearless antiwar movement” that brought many to their feet
in applause. The final vote was close, but the Assembly's vote clearly favored
our amendment over the milquetoast language of the Coordinating Committee. This
was our first democratic victory. But the opponents of our proposal were not
subdued. Despite the understanding we had been given that the winning proposal
would be forthwith included in the Action Program, the acting Chair, who I
believe was Jeff Mackler, ruled that he would now allow amendments to our
language. This, of course, is a violation of Robert's Rules, which requires
that whenever an assembly is considering alternative proposals, all amendment
must be done BEFORE they are voted on. Alas, this would not be the last of
Robert's Rules to be seriously breached by our opponents. In any case, an
amendment was offered from the floor to remove from our amendment any reference
to the Zionist lobbies as a cause of the war. Its proponent argued that he did
not believe that the Zionist lobby dominated US foreign policy. In speaking
against the amendment, I noted that it was essentially an effort to rob our
recently approved language of its substance (essentially raising the same issue
twice, which Robert's Rules forbids), and then went on to cite the many
scholars, including Drs. Walt and Mearsheimer, Dr. James Petras and Jonathon
Cook, all of whom have identified the influence of the Zionist lobby as
instrumental in instigating US war against Iraq. The vote was extremely close
on this one, but once again we prevailed: the majority of the Assembly defended
our language that included explicit reference to the Zionist lobbies. This was
our second democratic victory. Then the amended language was put to a final
vote, and it now won easily. This was our amendment's third democratic
victory.
The
Administrative Body Usurps Power and Subverts the Democratic Decision of the
Assembly
Naturally, we were elated by all this, and left the
Assembly with hope and good faith understanding that the Action Program document
issued by the Administrative Body (whose members were elected at the very end of
the Assembly after many of us had already left) would reflect the democratic
decisions of the Assembly, including our adopted amendments. But our trust was
tragically ill placed. Our opponents refused to accept their democratic defeat,
and went on to corrupt the operation of the 13- member Administrative Body,
which had never been assigned governing authority in the first place, and whose
primary task was to form a Continuations Committee from representatives of
member groups which would have governing authority. Instead of
performing its assigned task, instead of setting up a listserv so that the
members of the Assembly could continue to openly communicate with one another as
any other democratically run organization might do, the Administrative Body
decided to “politically correct” the decision of the Assembly to adopt our
amendment, by illicitly instituting a so-called “referundum” on the question.
Those of us who supported the amendment first learned of
this usurpation from Stan Heller, who, apparently because he had personally
proposed the original amendment, was informed of the Administrative Body's
decision and invited to submit a 200 word opposition statement if he so chose,
that would be included in the “referendum” along with the Administration Body's
proposed revision. Before we examine these arguments themselves, let us pause
here to reflect on the process already taking place, and the subversion of
democratic process (not to mention decency) that it represents:
1)
The Administrative Body's function is to set up the Continuations
Committee, not to meddle in politics. The political decisions were to be made
by the Assembly, and augmented by the Continuations Committee composed of
representatives of member groups.
2)
By informing in advance only Stan Heller of this decision, and giving
only Stan Heller the right to make a statement that would be seen by others who
were sent ballots, the AB effectively disenfranchised every member of the
Assembly who is NOT on the AB of the right to debate its motion, a clear
abrogation of Robert's Rules by which the Assembly agreed to be bound. Moreover
the limitation of Stan's rebuttal to 200 words was itself an arbitrary
limitation of his right to debate, something Robert's Rules requires a
2/3 majority of the Assembly to authorize.
3)
Of course, no one outside of the AB had any opportunity to challenge the
legality of the AB's decision to hold a referendum in the first place. This
should not have been a problem since the Administrative Body had been assigned
no governing power, but once it usurped this power, it was careful not to allow
democratic discourse between the members which would have enabled them to
challenge this usurpation of power belonging only to the Assembly itself.
4)
Roberts' Rules of Order Newly Revised, Tenth Edition, expressly prohibits
email and other cybernetic forms of voting unless explicitly authorized by an
organization's bylaws, and unless it meets certain other conditions (which allow
for the normal open debate between members, for instance), but this organization
does not HAVE any bylaws. Ipso facto, even if the AB had the authority
to initiate a referedum on a question already decided by the Assembly (which it
certainly does not), the use of such email ballots would be illicit.
I could go on at length about what a mockery this made of
any genuine democratic process, but let us leave this question aside for now and
review the pathetic pleadings of the AB as to why, in their unanimous opinion,
such an extreme abridgment of democracy had become so urgently necessary. I
first learned about the AB's machinations second hand, from an email sent to
several of us who had worked with Stan at the Assembly on this amendment:
Jeff Mackler on behalf of the
Administrative Committee contacted me several days ago and said that he had
received many complaints about one part of our amendment "Jewish and Christian
Zionist lobbyists…” and ask if it could be changed. I said that it was
democratically voted on (3 times) and that in fact mentioning the lobbies as
motivation was an important advance in the analysis.
This attempt by Mackler to gain Stan's assent to change the
wording based on unspecified “complaints” was highly manipulative, but even more
disturbing is Mackler's apparent belief that Stan Heller had any special power
over the amendment after it had already been adopted by the Assembly. Had
Mackler approached Stan Heller prior to his submitting the amendment to the
Assembly and asked him to change the wording, he would have been within in his
rights. If had argued for a change in the wording once the amendment was under
consideration by the Assembly, he would ALSO have been within his rights, and it
is possible that Stan may have chosen to adopt it as a friendly amendment. But
technically, once the amendment is under consideration by the Assembly, the
proponent loses all propriety rights to it, and only the Assembly itself, as
determined by its majority, can alter or dispose of it. As the Assembly had
already approved this amendment, Mackler's strange attempt to contact only its
original author represents a bizarre attempt to turn back the hands of time and
undo the work of the Assembly. But you can't do that...at least, not without
making a mockery of democratic values. What's done is done, so long as it is
done democratically, and it cannot be undone except democratically, by either a
majority or super-majority of those “present.” Without this important
protection, all democratic process would be a sham, just as this Administrative
Body has made a sham out of the democratic work of the Assembly.
In fact, Mackler was being very disingenuous in his claim
above that the proposed wording change concerned only the references to “Jewish
and Christian Zionists.” There was, in fact, an even larger distortion of our
amendment in the works, albeit more nefariously. As is clear from my remarks on
the question to the Assembly, we had presented “the influence of the lobbies of
Christian and Jewish Zionists and the interests of the military-industrial
complex” as independent causes of the war against Iraq, in a way that openly
CHALLENGED the contention that this was merely a “war for oil.” But in its
politically corrected form, thanks to the Gang of 13 in the Administrative Body,
the original Coordinating Committee statement asserting a war for oil was
preserved intact. Then, several sentences later, they proposed to insert our
now-mangled amendment by stating that this same war for oil was “spurred
on by” these two other influences. This was more than a distortion, it was
turning our amendment on its head, and instead of allowing these causes to be
listed along with the oil explanation for the war, they had made them
subordinate to and supportive of the very explanation for the war we had
openly challenged. This is rankest dishonesty.
And as we will see in the “referendum” language, this
perversion of our amendment was presented in both the “pro” and the “con”
versions on the ballot, so either way, without realizing it, people were voting
to subvert the substance of the original amendment: very insidious, but also
very transparent to those of us who remember its purpose and the Assembly's
approval of its clear intent.
What follows below is a deconstruction
[in red italics, in brackets] of the text of the “referendum” sent
out by the Administrative Body (we know of some registered participants in the
Assembly who did not receive it). The subject heading of this email message was
“URGENT: NATIONAL ASSEMBLYREFERENDUM VOTE CALLED. PLEASE VOTE!” and it was sent
by “natassembly(at)aol.com, who never signs her or her name. Indeed, the AB's
plaintive apologia for the referendum (which runs almost twice as long as the
200 words alloted Stan Heller, and this is BEFORE the AB grants itself 200 words
to make its case for the revision), is signed by no one in particular (though I
believe the AB did elect officers, but who knows for sure?). The 200 word
response of the AB is in addition to this, and it is signed by the entire AB:
Please cast your
vote by replying to this email!
To:
All
Registered Participants in the June 28-29, 2008 National Assembly to End the
Iraq War and Occupation
[Not all registered participants were sent copies of this.]
From:
Administrative Body, National Assembly to End the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and
Occupations
Re:
Referendum Vote on amending the language adopted in the Action Program with
regard to the wording “… the influence of the lobbies of Jewish and Christian
Zionists.”
[This subject heading is misleading in the extreme....the substantial change for
which the AB is illicitly seeking approval concerns the contrived wording
“spurred on by” which subordinates the two independent causes of the War to
subordinate causes of an “oil war” -- see below]
At its first meeting on July 13, 2008, the elected Administrative
Body of the National Assembly to End the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and
Occupations voted to conduct a referendum of all registered participants who
attended the June 28-29, 2008 Cleveland antiwar conference.
[Nowhere
in either the above or the below paragraphs is the AUTHORITY for the National
Assembly to conduct a referendum cited.]
The main reason for
conducting the referendum is this: There was widespread confusion and
misunderstanding regarding some wording contained in the Palestine amendment
when it was voted on by the conference.
[“Widespread?” What
does this mean? Note that this term completely obscures the identities of those
who have launched this campaign to undo the work of the Assembly...in genuine
democratic procedures the identities of all speakers and the maker of all
motions must be identified...but not here! You can be sure that if their
identities were revealed, it would be crystal clear that they were people who
hadn't the slightest “misunderstanding” of the wording of this amendment, but
understood it well enough to openly oppose it three times during the course of
the Assembly's consideration of it.]
A majority of
Administrative Body members, for example, who were present when the vote was
cast, were unaware
that it contained the words "the lobbies of Jewish and Christian Zionists."
[This is an incredible
admission, when we consider that the core people from the Coordinating Committee
were the same core people on the Presiding Committee (who oversaw the voting)
and now are the core people in the so-called Administrative Body. They
hopscotched from being self-appointed organizers to presiding officers to
elected administrators, picking up power as they went (but not as much as they
think). Moreover, if there really WAS confusion about the wording here, who
was responsible for it if not these members of the Presiding Committee
themselves? Shouldn't they acknowledge their incompetence and resign, if people
did not even understand what they were even voting on? But no, they themselves
ALL understood very well the wording of our amendment, because it was submitted
to them in writing, and many of them openly opposed it from the podium in the
course of debate. Using their own incompetence as presiding officers to justify
taking a FOURTH VOTE on a matter already resolved by the Assembly THREE TIMES is
surely the height of chutzpah.]
And based on many
reports received after the conference, this misunderstanding was widespread.
[And here we go again:
“many” reports....”widespread”...how many reports? Can we see these reports?
Who sent them? How “widespread” exactly? Of course, we are not told. We are
not on a need-to-know basis, being only participants in a “democratic” Assembly,
not high and mighty members of the “Administrative Body” appointed by it....]
Many people told us
that if they had known that this language was part of the amendment, they would
have voted differently.
[“Many?” Just how many
please? Can't we even have a clue? That people would have voted differently
(even if it were true) is beside the point, as any parliamentary procedure,
including Robert's Rules, will tell you....a vote stands until the next
legitimate vote, which means the next properly called assembly, because the
rights of a majority cannot be rescinded at the behest of a minority. This is
undoubtedly one reason why no numbers are given here, and the effort is made
over and over again to imply a vast objection. It insults the intelligence of
the participants of this Assembly that they they voted three times in favor of
our amendment and had no idea what they were voting on.]
Of course, if copies
in writing had been made available to all attendees at the conference instead of
to just two people, it would have been different.
[And once again, whose
responsibility was it to provide copies of amendments to the participants?
Those with amendments were instructed to submit them in writing to the Presiding
Committee, not to make copies for the plenary. The Presiding committee had all
Saturday night and part of Sunday morning to make copies for the participants...
that it CHOSE not to do so is telling. But it is no reflection on anyone but
themselves, and to repeat, they were OPPOSED to these amendments, and spoke
openly against them to the plenary. Are we to suppose that between our
arguments and their counterarguments the participants did not understand what
they were voting on? We should also point out that in the subsequen election
of the members of this Administrative Body, there were ALSO no written ballots
provided with their names on them, nor were the candidates given the slightest
opportunity to address the participants, or even to be identified in some
cases. Borrowing the same logic, since I would never have voted for these
people if I had known who they really are (now that they have shown their hand),
shouldn't I have the right to call for a new election of the Administrative
Body? Don't hold your breath...]
We wish to make one
point crystal clear: the
Palestine amendment was approved by the conference and it has been made part of
the Action Program.
That is not at issue here.
The only question that the referendum will settle is whether the words "the
lobbies of Jewish and Christian Zionists" will be included as part of the text.
[Well, this is just
doubletalk. If the Palestine amendent was approved (and it certainly
was...three times!), what authorizes a new referendum on any part of it? But
the big lie here, of course, is that it is not simply the words “the lobbies of
Jewish and Christian Zionists” that is at issue, but the question of whether
these independent causes of the war are recognized as such in the final wording
of the Motivation section of the Action Program, per the amendment. And of
course, the AB never acknowledges that it has made this alteration in the
amendment, and focuses instead on these particular “controversial” words.]
Because of the
critical implications of including this kind of language in the program adopted
by the National Assembly to End the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and Occupations,
the Administrative Body concluded that the matter should be clarified and that
the best and most democratic way to do that would be through a referendum, where
all registered conference attendees would have a vote.
[Well isn't that
special? But we are still are not being told by what authority the AB is
conducting this referendum on a matter already decided by the Assembly. And
once again, even if the AB did have such authority, which it clearly does not,
the use of such an unverifiable means of balloting is prohibited by Robert's
Rules for obvious reasons. But of course, there can be no appeal of
“Administrative” decisions, now, can there? Not once the Administrative Body
ceases to function as a democratic arm of a democratic Assembly and begins
functioning as a cabal to impose its own canons of political correctness.]
Several Administrative
Body members have stated that they accept everything in the Palestine amendment
except the disputed wording and would have to withdraw their backing for the
Assembly if that language were retained.
[This is perhaps the
most revealing sentence in this entire concatenation. In the first place, note
the word “disputed.” This recalls nothing so much as the substitution some
years ago of “Disputed Territories” for the formerly (and correctly) termed
“Occupied Territories” in Palestine by Zionist-influenced media. According to
every existing international law, the remaining areas of Palestine are under
Israeli occupation, and therefore are properly termed “Occupied Territories.”
But when the Zionist-influenced media twist the truth and call them “Disputed
Territories” it suggests that there are two legitimate claims under
consideration, when in fact there is only one. This same trick is used here, to
suggest that there is more than one claim about what language was approved by
the Assembly, when even the email sent by Mackler to Stan Heller contains the
original wording, and does not “dispute” it.
But in this sentence we
also see evidence of who instigated this subversive effort and how they managed
to manipulate the entire AB into complying with their wishes. It is clear that
this issue was so important to the opponents of our amendment, that they
threatened to disassociate from the Assembly if this democratic decision were
not rescinded. Thus it was apparently put to the more neutral members of the
Assembly that if they did not go along with the blackmail, they would be
responsible for losing the “unity” which the Assembly had consciously striven to
obtain. But what about unity with those members who had introduced their
amendment in good faith, and what about maintaining unity with the majority of
the Assembly who voted to support their amendment? NEVER MIND THAT! Once
again we see that some participants in this “democratic” assembly are “more
equal than others.” You can bet that the member or members who threatened to
withdraw if the Assembly's democratic process were not subverted are those same
people who are used to having their dictatorial way in United For Peace and
Justice, and other such top-down organizations in the “progressive” movement.
Rather than confronting these individuals for the blackmailers they are, who
care nothing about real unity or democratic process and are willing to sacrifice
both on the altar of their closet Zionism, the rest of the Administrative Body
gave into them, in the same way a weak parent gives into a spoiled child who
threatens to make a public scene. When we reconstruct their sentence in
reasonable language, what it really says is: “Certain influential members of
the Administrative Body threatened to leave our organization if we allow this
democratic decision to stand, so for a fourth time we are illegally putting it
to a vote, this time using illicit methods in order to obtain a decision that
will be more politically acceptable to them.”
And while we are on this
subject, let's examine closely the wording which these individuals find so
appalling that their organizations would threaten to withdraw over them: “the
lobbies of Christian and Jewish Zionists.” Does anyone who has spent ANY time
in the antiwar movement, on the Internet or with the alternative media have any
doubt at all that these Christian and Jewish Zionist lobbies exist, that they
are powerful and that they push for war against Israel's putative enemies? Even
the mainstream media recently reported how John McCain was at one point courting
the political support of the Rev. John Hagee...and what does his organization do
other than lobby support in Congress on behalf of Christian Zionists? Does
anyone in the movement any longer pretend that AIPAC and other Jewish lobbying
groups do not do the same? What then is so controversial about this wording
that veteran antiwar organizations would need to withdraw from an Assembly that
openly referred to them? Obviously this would NOT be true for antiwar
organizations whose first interest was really peace, but which instead have a
hidden agenda to deflect criticism from Israel's political infrastructure in the
United States. ]
We have also been
informed that a broad range of other Assembly supporters are in accord with this
view.
[Informed? Informed by
whom? Who would be in a position to inform the Administrative Body of what a
“broad range” of other Assembly supporters think on the subject? Was this a
scientifically conducted survey, do you suppose? Then why were none of us who
supported the amendment interviewed as to our opinion on the subject? What a
hoot!]
Since we favor unity
and as broad a network as possible, this was a grave concern for the new
Administrative Body.
[Oh, “we” do,
do we? Exactly
how “broad?” Broad enough to include those who participated in the Assembly and
made amendments in good faith that were approved by the Assembly? Apparently
not. Broad enough to include those who wish to talk about the elephant sitting
in the living room? No again... no, just broad enough to include those who
agree to continue the taboo on discussing the influence of Zionism in driving
American military aggression.” ]
We did not take
lightly this calling a referendum but it seemed to us that was the only way to
resolve this issue so that the vote would be clear to all registered conference
attendees.
[Well again, Robert's
Rules limits voting to members “present” in a physical sense. There are sound
reasons for this. These conditions were met by the three votes that affirmed
these amendments. An “email referendum” does not come close to meeting such
democratic standards, and the Administrative Body is still bound by the
democratic principles of Roberts Rules whether it likes it or not. It has no
governing authority OVER the Assembly, it is supposed to be carrying out the
will of the Assembly.]
The Administrative Body proposes to amend the wording in the
adopted Action Program as follows:
Change: “It is a war spurred on by the interests of the military
industrial complex and the influence of the lobbies of Jewish and
Christian Zionists."
To: “It is a war spurred on by the corporate interests behind the
military industrial complex and the influence of powerful lobbies supporting the
Israeli occupation of Palestine."
[Well, here is where
the treachery of the AB is most clear: the above clearly suggests that the
language which they claim to want to change is the language of the original
amendment, when they know very well it is nothing of the sort. The original
language of the amendment was included by Mackler in his email message to Stan
Heller. It did not contain the words “It is a war spurred on by” at all. It
simply called for adding the rest of the sentence, which is
almost correctly
stated, to the causes of war which at that time only included the war for oil.
I refer readers once again to the text of my remarks argued before the Assembly,
prior to the adoption of the amendment. We OPPOSED these causes of war to the
war for oil explanation, which is the opposite of the wording presented below,
which uses them IN SUPPORT of the war for oil explanation:]
The amended paragraph, as proposed by the Administrative Committee,
would read (with the change in italics):
The war and occupation of Iraq is motivated by the drive to control that
country’s gigantic oil wealth and access to the energy resources of the entire
Middle East. It is a war in which working class youth, especially from oppressed
nationalities, are victims of the "economic draft" and pay the ultimate price.
It is a war that in the name of combating terror uses legislation like the
Patriot Act and Executive Orders to violate constitutional rights, particularly
habeas corpus, in order to increase surveillance, stifle dissent, and scapegoat
immigrants. It is a war costing trillions of dollars needed to solve pressing
social problems at home, rebuild the destruction in Iraq, and relieve hunger and
poverty around the globe. It is a war spurred on by the corporate interests
behind the military industrial complex and the influence of powerful lobbies
supporting the Israeli occupation of Palestine. We oppose all funding for
unjust wars and occupations.
[Well, this is the big lie. Here in fact is what the amended paragraph would
look like if nothing were amended...i have italicized the difference:
The war and occupation of Iraq is motivated by the interests of the military
industrial complex, the influence of the lobbies of Jewish and Christian
Zionists and by the drive to control that country’s gigantic oil wealth and
access to the energy resources of the entire Middle East. It is a war in which
working class youth, especially from oppressed nationalities, are victims of the
"economic draft" and pay the ultimate price. It is a war that in the name of
combating terror uses legislation like the Patriot Act and Executive Orders to
violate constitutional rights, particularly habeas corpus, in order to increase
surveillance, stifle dissent, and scapegoat immigrants. It is a war costing
trillions of dollars needed to solve pressing social problems at home, rebuild
the destruction in Iraq, and relieve hunger and poverty around the globe. We
oppose all funding for unjust wars and occupations.
Compare this to the AB version and you will see the radical difference between
the two. I just discovered in the course of this exercise that they altered
another part of our adopted amendment. Instead of “the interest of the military
industrial complex” they have rendered it “the corporate interests behind the
military industrial complex.” I wonder what they think gives them the right to
politically correct the decisions of the Assembly like this? It is the
strongest argument I can imagine for their removal.]
If you approve of this proposed amendment, place an "X" on this
line: _____
If you disapprove of this proposed amendment, place an "X" on this
line: -------
Below you will find a 200-word or less motivation for the “Yes”
position submitted by the Administrative Body of the National Assembly and a
200-word or less motivation for the “No” position submitted by the Middle East
Crisis Committee, CT.
[This
is a stupendous misrepresentation of fact. In no way can the position submitted
by the Middle East Crisis Committee be construed as a support for the “no”
position. Had the AB been honest, it would have said: “and a 200-word or less
motivation challenging our right to conduct this referendum by the Middle East
Crisis Committee, CT.” Read it for yourself below.]
Your vote must be received by July 31, 2008. After marking your
ballot, please respond by emailing
natassembly@aol.com. Ballots
must be received no later than July 31 and
the name of the person casting the
ballot must be included for the vote to be counted in
order to guarantee the integrity of the process and preserve a record.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motivation
for a “Yes” vote: Submitted by the Administrative Body
Specifying “Jewish and Christian Zionists” is sure to draw charges of
anti-Semitism and anti-religious prejudice. Use of such language would be
offensive to many broader forces that the Assembly is trying to win to its cause
– including labor and faith groups -- not to mention the bulk of the present
movement.
[Let us ask who these
“labor and faith groups” are that would be offended by such language. Do the
“faith groups” include Muslims, should we suppose? [The attempt to be more
inclusive of Muslims was one of the expressed motivations for the approved
amendment.] Exactly which “faith group” would be offended by the open statement
about the religious identification of the Zionist lobbies pushing for war? Oh
wait a minute... I know! And I'll bet you do too! But does anyone seriously
believe that it makes sense to recruit that group to the antiwar movement? And
if, like their allies on the Administrative Body, they make the price of their
involvement the suppression of truth and democratic process they are instigating
on their behalf, how useful is that, really?]
To
our knowledge, none of the existing antiwar coalitions has ever used the phrase
“Jewish and Christian Zionists.”
[Would intelligent,
literate people ever be moved by an argument such as this?]
If the National Assembly were to include this language
in its Action Program, it would run the risk of undercutting the very unity we
are trying so hard to forge to end the wars and occupations of Iraq and
Afghanistan,
[The further
amplification of the blackmail... “if we don't give in to these groups and
subvert our democratic process they will withdraw.”]
and
it would hurt – not help – the Palestinian cause by diverting attention from the
injustices of the Israeli occupation to what will be regarded as smearing
religions.
[Well they have really
outdone themselves in the chutzpah department here. They are invoking the
Palestinian cause to defend Zionist machinations. And who is “smearing
religions” here? Those who abuse it to promote a Zionist political agenda, or
those who expose such abuse of religion? The amendment specified ZIONIST
lobbies, but this is exactly the word that the AB wants to remove, despite their
pretended concern about religious references (and despite the fact that an
amendment from the floor during the Assembly failed to remove it). Look at
their revision and you will see that the word “Zionist” is nowhere to be found,
with or without the “Jewish and Christian” adjectives, their pretended concern.]
In our view, retention of the “Jewish and Christian
Zionist” language would be lethal to the future of the National Assembly.
[But of course,
subverting the democratic process of the Assembly, and usurping its power, will
not.]
Signed by the 13-member Administrative Body of the National Assembly:
Zaineb Alani, Colia Clark, Greg Coleridge, Donna
Dewitt, Jamilla El-Shafei, Mike Ferner, Jerry Gordon, Jonathan Hutto, Marilyn
Levin, Jeff Mackler, Fred Mason, Mary Nichols-Rhodes, Lynne Stewart
************************************************************************
From:
"Stan H" <mecc@comcast.net>
Subject: response to the Administrative Body
A principle of the
National Assembly was that anyone could come to the meeting and that decisions
of the body would be made by those present, grass root democratic decision
making. In terms of Palestine and Israel besides the language establishing that
Palestine is critical to the anti-war movement and the words on boycotts and
divestment, the Assembly voted to add to the language about oil motivating the
war these further motivations “the interests of the military industrial complex
and the influence of the lobbies of Jewish and Christian Zionists.”
This language in the
amendment passed three votes, once to become the main motion, once when someone
tried to delete the words about the lobbies and a third time as the entire
amendment was passed. The Assembly then ended. The Assembly certainly had the
right to list all the factors behind the war. The Administrative Body has no
authority to hold a referendum to change parts of the action/motivational call
of the Assembly.
Rather than hold this
referendum let the Administrative Body setup a listserv of the 407 conference
participants so we can work together to carry out the will of the Assembly.
Stanley Heller,
Chairperson, Middle East Crisis Committee, CT
[My only criticism of
Stan's response is that he does not make it clear that BOTH versions presented
by the AB are distortions of the original amendment. But in fairness to Stan,
he is limited to 200 words here. Which allows us to see exactly WHY this
undemocratic limitation was made. Why 200 words? Why not 500 words? Why not
unlimited space to make your argument. The answer is, because it takes more
than 200 words to unravel a tissue of lies like this. By limiting the
opposition to 200 words, the AB provides the illusion of “fairness” (unless
people notice the lengthy preamble which states the AB's case before they are
even recognized to speak), while effectively denying the opponent adequate space
to counter all of its dishonest machinations. It is the same thing as the
classic: “Are are you going to stop beating your wife? Yes or no?” Except
that here, tragically, this game is being played by individuals in whom a number
of activists trusted to carry out the democratic decisions of an antiwar
Assembly, so it is hard to laugh.
It is important to
note, before we move on to review the results of this illicit referendum, that
Stan Heller does not invite people to vote “no” (these words were put into his
mouth by the AB, and of course, Stan is not present to raise a point of order
to object)...Stan appropriately challenges the legality of conducting a
referendum on an item that has already been decided by the Assembly and the AB's
authority to conduct such a referendum. Anyone agreeing with Stan would not
vote “No,” because doing so would only serve to legitimize this illicit
referendum. Logically, such individuals would instead refrain from
participating in this illegal ballot.
Results of the Illicit Referendum
Now as to the results of this attempt at political correction by the AB:
According to its report, they received 157 yes votes, and 18 no votes, with “2
abstentions.” It seems odd that they would claim two abstentions, since there
was no place on the “ballot” to indicate abstention. As you can see, there are
only spaces for yes or no votes on the “ballot.” The only way, then, to
abstain (in protest against the referendum itself) was simply not to vote. Out
of curiosity, I asked natassembly(at)aol.com how many people were sent ballots.
It turns out that natassembly(at)aol.com is Jerry Gordon, who now signed himself
“Secretary, National Assembly.” Not “Secretary, Administrative Body of the
National Assembly.” This was the more curious as when one of us earlier
requested the minutes of the National Assembly, we were told that there were
none, because the National Assembly did not have a secretary. Curiouser and
curiouser, as Alice would say. (And never mind that Roberts' Rules requires a
secretary in order for an assembly to conduct business in the first place.)
Now, what does Robert's Rules require in order to amend something previously
approved by an assembly? Normally, it requires a supermajority, or 2/3 of those
present, to accomplish this. This is an important protection of the rights of
the majority, so that finagling opponents cannot easily undo something
officially adopted by a majority by manipulating simple majorities. An assembly
must REALLY want to amend something it has already adopted in order to do so.
So the first question that we must ask is: how many people were “present ” in
this ballot? The impossibility of giving a definitive answer to this question
explains in part why Roberts' Rules forbids this practice. But for the sake of
argument, which is really stretching a point, let's say that all 400 of those to
whom Jerry Gordon claims to have sent ballots are considered “present.” How many
of them would constitute a 2/3 vote? About 266? How many voted in favor of the
AB's amendment? 157. Even if we use the loophole provided by Roberts that a
majority of the entire membership can accomplish this, and then grant these 400
people “membership,” a majority vote would require 201 affirmative votes,
whereas the Mr. Gordon reports only 157. (And whenever this absolute majority
is required, abstentions are counted AGAINST it, so that both abstentions and no
votes count against the motion.) In other words, viewed in any democratic
context, despite the illicit nature of the vote (or perhaps because of its
illicit nature), our amendment won a fourth democratic victory! Ah, but its
opponents were STILL not going to take no for answer. Despite being
democratically defeated four times (nevermind that this last vote was totally
illicit), they still went on to claim victory, and altered the wording and the
positioning of the amendment to suit their own code of political correctness,
democracy be damned! This “Gang of 13” are a law unto themselves. The results
of their perfidy are now posted on the
National Assembly's website for all to see.
Analysis and Conclusions: The Enemy Within
I
imagine there are some readers who are not fully conversant with the issues of
controversy here, who will not grasp the enormity of the Administrative Body's
subversive action. They will ask: aren't you making a mountain out of a
molehill? What's the big deal about whether the word “Zionist” is used to
describe the lobbies, or whether the influence of the Zionist lobbies is listed
as primary or secondary cause of the war? To such naïve readers, I would give
two answers: The first is that the antiwar movement cannot get anywhere without
integrity, and that means among other things honoring the essential principles
of democratic process, including at a minimum majority rule. But I would also
reply that these readers are begging the question by suggesting that it is I
who am making a mountain out of a molehill. In fact, it was certain actors on
the Administrative Body who first chafed under the democratic decisions of the
Assembly, and threatened to withdraw unless these decisions were subverted. If
these were such minor matters why did it occasion such a huge reaction from
these people? And right there we have our answer: any pinpointing or exposure
of Zionist manipulation of US Middle East policy has the same effect as the
proverbial pea in the princess' bed: normal folks do not notice it, but the
hypersensitive princess loses sleep over it, proving her royalty. And in the
same way, these statements of fact about Zionism are POLITICALLY UNACCEPTABLE to
those with Zionist leanings, or those who are overly concerned about the
possible response from those with Zionist leanings. In the first category, I
would list so-called Left Zionists: those in the antiwar movement who want to
have their cake (appear to oppose war) and eat it too (except where Israel's
role in it, or Israel's putative security, is concerned). In the second
category, a good example would be many members of the Democratic Party (60% of
whose fundraising comes from Jewish-funded political action committees,
according to a recent estimate by Richard Cohen of the Washington Post). And of
course, there are more than enough of both in the antiwar movement who wish to
co-opt it for their own political purposes.
There is a failure in the antiwar movement generally to grasp the essence of
Zionism, and to understand how inimical it is to justice or to peace. It is
inimical to justice because it is premised on the brutal dispossession of native
Palestinians and their permanent alienation from their own land and homes, and
it is inimical to peace because it wishes Israel to have undisputed hegemony in
the Middle East, and its powerful lobbies are employed to manipulate the United
States government into securing it for them by fighting Israel's “enemies” on
Israel's behalf. The antiwar movement cannot make common cause with Zionists
any more than it can make common cause with Nazis or Nicaraguan Contras.
Some ideologies are violent by nature.... they have unjust, antidemocratic
goals which can only be accomplished by illicit, belligerent means. And when
their votaries (or agents) infiltrate the antiwar movement, they eventually
manifest this same pattern of behavior. The antiwar movement cannot serve both
the cause of peace and the cause of Zionism – morally speaking, these two causes
are diametrically opposed. And as we have seen in this example of the National
Assembly, as in so many others before it, Zionists and their cronies cannot
serve both the cause of Zionism and the cause of peace (and democratic praxis)
either. In the end, what does Zionism have to do with peacemaking? The
continuing attempt to admix these two opposing forces of light and darkness has
led, naturally enough, to the waning twilight of the American antiwar movement.
Our movement is now at a crossroads: As this report demonstrates, yet another
attempt to unite the antiwar movement democratically has failed to
materialize. The pattern of imposing authoritarian political correctness and of
performing endless damage control for Zionism at the expense of internal
democracy is no less apparent in this latest episode of the National Assembly's
Administrative Body as it was in UFPJ from its first convention, but why should
we expect anything different? After all, a number of its principals are the same
people!
It
therefore behooves those who genuinely seek an end to US wars to come to grips
with Zionism's role in perpetrating America's modern wars, and to categorically
exclude from participation in the antiwar movement anyone with Zionist
sympathies. The way to do this is EXACTLY by beginning with an unequivocal
anti-Zionist position. Why would we ever want the participation of anyone
whose first goal is to deflect criticism from a primary progenitor of the war
(Israel)? Recognizing that this is the hidden agenda of Zionists within the
antiwar movement is the first, necessary step to recovering our internal
democracy as a movement, and thence our energy and direction. Having Zionists
in the antiwar movement is not much different from having in the movement
someone working for the CIA, for Lockheed-Martin or an Army recruiter, who joins
the antiwar movement to seek a softer line from us on the military-industrial
complex because our obloquy against it hits a little too close to home. Wars
are not waged without cause. Wars always serve somebody's interests. Those who
have taken the time to study contemporary US wars understand that all three of
the forces that would have been listed by the National Assembly's action program
if it had not been corrupted by Zionist influence -- the military-industrial
complex, Zionists and likely a few opportunists in the oil and oil services
sector – believed they stood to gain from US war against Iraq (and potential
war against Iran), and Zionists in particular promoted this war from the
very beginning. Any denial of this by the antiwar movement not only flies in
the face of modern historical scholarship, but thereby becomes, as we say in
Texas, a dog that won't hunt. Crypto-zionists (and their sycophants) in the
antiwar movement serve as the rear guard of the Zionist Power Configuration so
well described by author James Petras in his latest books, and they should not
be permitted to further obstruct the movement's progress in identifying the
real and demonstrated perpetrators of the wars we so bitterly oppose, which are
draining our nation (not to mention those nations wantonly attacked) of blood
and treasure, while indebting generations yet unborn to pay for it, in the
interests of making the world safe...for Apartheid Israel.
How can we, in the antiwar movement, ever inspire other less informed Americans
to think outside of the box, if we cower before the taboo of recognizing Zionism
as a co-belligerent and primary instigator of the current war against Iraq and
of an impending war against Iran? The answer, of course, is that we cannot,
because our actions always speak louder than our words. And even if the
National Assembly succeeds in mobilizing mass numbers to demonstrate against the
current war, its major announced goal a more dubious proposition since this
betrayal of democracy by its Administrative Body), the antiwar movement cannot
make any real progress without freely and fearlessly confronting this
five-ton elephant in our living room. With recognized scholars like James Petras,
Stephen Walt, John Mearsheimer and journalists of the stature of Jonathon Cook
and Jeffrey Blankfort all assiduously documenting the manipulation of America's
bellicose policies in the Middle East by the forces of Zionism, we have no
excuses left.
Ken Freeland is lifelong antiwar activist, who
lives in Houston, Texas, USA.
##########30#################