01.09.18 Some Countries

Readers of this blog and my followers on Facebook know by now that I am a democracy and anti-bigotry zealot. I have particular contempt for countries that voted in their authoritarian and/or racist governments and I reserve a special place in hell for those whose existence is underwritten by my tax dollars.

Here is a very incomplete list of countries that are bad in various ways. These are the countries that stand out for me, which is obviously subjective and not comprehensive.

Hegemonist or externally aggressive countries

• China
• Iran
• Israel
• Russia
• Saudi Arabia
• US (even if there is no present agenda to take over other countries, history is replete with examples US aggression/domination)

Authoritarian countries

• most countries in the world (see Freedom House’s democracy scores)
• Brazil
• China
• Cuba
• Hungary
• Israel (in that non-Jews are second-class citizens and residents of the Occupied Territories have no rights at all)
• Myanmar
• Poland
• Russia
• Turkey
• US (the US is not [yet] fully authoritarian, but its democratic foundations are under assault by the GOP)
• Venezuela

Racist/bigoted/misogynist countries (including some where the far-right is part of government and some that have passed harsh laws against immigrants/immigration)

• most of Central and Eastern Europe
• Australia (one of the harshest countries in the world to refugees)
• Austria
• Brazil
• China
• Denmark
• Hungary
• Iran
• Israel
• Italy
• Myanmar
• Netherlands
• Poland
• Russia
• Saudi Arabia
• Switzerland (parts)
• Turkey
• UK (racism was the only reason for Brexit’s passage)
• US

Countries where the people vote(d) for racist/authoritarian leadership

• Australia
• Austria
• Brazil
• Hungary
• Israel
• Italy
• Poland
• Russia
• Switzerland (parts)
• Turkey
• UK
• US
• Venezuela

Countries where my tax dollars underwrite authoritarianism, bigotry and/or hegemony

• Israel
• US

If I weren’t American, I would certainly boycott this country. Israel is the only other country that appears on all these lists. While anti-Semitism is a serious issue, my strong opposition to Israel is neither anti-Semitic (I’m Jewish!) nor unfair.

Want to nominate other countries for this list? Disagree with some of my choices? Let me know!

©2019 Keith Berner

 

 

08.03.17 Ben Cardin: still wrong; Chris Van Hollen: still silent

Per my post a few days ago, I wrote to Senator Ben Cardin (MD) in opposition to his bill criminalizing political speech he disagrees with. I heard back from his office today. Here is his note (my reply appears below that):

Thank you for sharing your comments on the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, S. 720. I appreciate your engagement regarding this piece of legislation, particularly your concerns over its potential impact on your constitutionally-protected First Amendment rights.

I understand that the American Civil Liberties Union released a letter that may have caused your, and other Marylanders’ concerns over the impact of S. 720 on civil liberties. I want you to know that I would not support legislation that would infringe upon those freedoms, and I welcome the opportunity to engage with you regarding some of the misunderstandings about the bill.

S. 720 seeks to amend the Export Administration Act (EAA), a 40-year-old law that prohibits U.S. persons from complying with unsanctioned foreign boycotts imposed by foreign countries. The prohibitions of the EAA have been consistently upheld as constitutionally sound. The new legislation amends the EAA to extend its existing prohibitions to unsanctioned foreign boycotts imposed by international governmental organizations, such as United Nations agencies or the European Union.

I want to highlight that this bill does not limit the rights of American citizens or organizations to express their views on Israeli or American foreign policy; nor does it limit the rights of American citizens or businesses from engaging in boycott activity of their own accord. I hope you will read my response to the ACLU, which is attached with this letter for your review. As I state in that letter and repeat to you now in this correspondence, I welcome healthy dialogue with constituents regarding the purpose and importance of this legislation, and I sincerely hope that this letter has addressed your concerns.

Thank you again for reaching out to me to share your thoughts on S. 720. Please do not hesitate to follow up with me should you have any additional questions or concerns regarding this bill, or any other matter of importance to you.

My reply:

Your assurances re my free-speech rights are empty until/unless I see further advice from the ACLU on this matter. The fact is that you once before prominently demonstrated your prioritization of Likud’s interests over US interests, when you opposed the Iran nuclear deal two years ago. You burned your credibility on matters touching on Israel at that time.

I will oppose your reelection and will continue to engage with Chris Van Hollen, Jamie Raskin, and other elected officials to defeat completely your misguided attempt to legislate your personal views on Israel and speech.

PS. I am Jewish and see you as a clear threat not only to my American civil liberties, but also to my ability to separate my ethnic identity from the horrific policies of the Israeli state.

In other news, Chris Van Hollen’s office still has no position to report, but this time his staff did give me the direct email address of his foreign affairs legislative assistant – please join me in writing to her: afreen_akhter@vanhollen.senate.gov.

I spoke again with Jamie Raskin today and he confirmed his opposition to S.270 and that he would produce a public statement on it before Congress returns from recess in September.

Finally, in a move that shows the lie in Ben Cardin’s email today, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) has withdrawn her cosponsorship of Cardin’s bill due to the ACLU’s analysis.

©2018 Keith Berner

07.31.17 Democrats seek to criminalize free speech (with friends like Ben Cardin, who needs enemies?)

Maryland Senator Ben Cardin introduced S.270, the “Israel Anti-Boycott Act” on March 23. It attracted little attention until the past couple of weeks.

This blog post is not about where you or I might stand on Israel. I have written plenty on that topic, including how Jewish-American politicians contribute to anti-Semitism through their support for the country.

Rather, I’m writing about free speech, a right enshrined in the First Amendment and a fundamental underpinning of US democracy (indeed of democracy itself). That is the issue at hand here: S.270’s purpose is to criminalize (with shockingly severe penalties) my right to hold political opinions that the bill’s many sponsors happen to disagree with.

As I wrote to Rep. Jamie Raskin (MD-8) last week:

Principled opposition to this bill is something quite apart from one’s particular views on Israel.  If you believe in civil liberties, you support them. Our fundamental freedoms should never be sacrificed to the interests of another country (any other country). Once that principle is agreed to, you can have whatever debate you need to about Israel.

Just in case you’re a fan of the ACLU, here’s what they have to say about this pernicious bill: How the Israel Anti-Boycott Act Threatens First Amendment Rights.

Take another look now at the S.270 link and that of HR.1697, the House’s equivalent. There are 46 cosponsors in the Senate and 249 in the house. That is, half of our elected officials are ready to toss aside the First Amendment because they think servitude to Likud and settlers is worth it.

We have become sadly accustomed to GOP assaults on democracy, particularly in the form of voter suppression, but not to exclude theft of Supreme Court appointments and more. But note this: 14 of those cosponsors in the Senate and 71 of them in the House are Democrats, including such “liberal” luminaries as Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand* (NY), Ron Wyden (OR), and Maria Cantwell (WA).

It gets worse, Maryland voters, as our own Hall of Shame is well populated. Apart from Cardin, here they are:

• Anthony Brown (MD-4)
• John Delaney (MD-6), who is now running for president in 2020 (suppress giggles here)
• Steny Hoyer (MD-5)
• Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-2)
• John Sarbanes (MD-3)

Out of Maryland’s seven Democratic members of the House, only Elijah Cummings (MD-7) and Raskin are not trying to undermine our constitution.

I called Sen. Chris Van Hollen’s and Jamie Raskin’s offices last week to find out where they stand on Cardin’s bill. Both told me that the members were “still considering it.” Here’s what I sent to Van Hollen:

I’m not sure how much study one would need to determine that a piece of legislation like this elevates another country’s temporal interests over our fundamental civil liberties.

I called Van Hollen’s office again today and was told exactly the same thing as last week. It is apparent that Chris Van Hollen is ducking his responsibility to stand up for the First Amendment. This goes beyond political cowardice – since his reelection to the Senate is damn near guaranteed for life. In fact, I can think of no explanation for it at all. I urge you to write him and call him (202-224-4654) to get him to do the right thing.

Because I have a personal relationship with Raskin, I called him directly last Friday and was gratified to hear him denounce the measure unequivocally. When I told him that his staff didn’t know his position, he said he would take care of that promptly and issue a written statement. When I called back today, his staff still didn’t know his stand and had not seen a statement. I urge you to write him and call him (202-225-5341) to get him on the public record.

We learned two years ago, when Ben Cardin and Chuck Schumer were two of only three Democrats to oppose the Iran nuclear deal, that they will always prioritize Likud’s interests over American interests. This is a soft form of treason, in my book, and neither of these men deserves to be in elected office. (They are entitled to their opinions — no one is entitled to be an elected official.) What amazes me this go ‘round is how many additional Democrats are willing to swear allegiance to Benjamin Netanyahu instead of to the Constitution of the United States of America. Please remember this in 2018.

*Kirsten Gillibrand seemed like such a hero in the winter when she led Dems in the number of Trump appointments she voted against. Oh well.

©2017 Keith Berner

01.29.17 Watch your words

What we call things makes a difference (note the Tea Party use of “Death Panels” — this was no accident). Here are two vocabulary changes I am now adopting:

• I will not refer to the cabal that temporarily rules our country as an “administration” or “government.” Rather it will always be “Trump regime,” “GOP regime,” and (when I think even that is too gentle), “fascist regime.” Regime conveys the illegitimacy of the racist authoritarians in power and their contempt for the norms of democracy and rule of law.

• I will make few, if any, further references to Great Britain or the United Kingdom. It is the racists of England who produced Brexit, just as the racists of the United States brought us our regime. The other nations that make up the UK had nothing to do with it. And as England carries this noxious policy through (led by PM Theresa May, who has appointed herself Trump’s lapdog, making even the ever- docile Tony Blair’s relationship with W look well adjusted), Scotland will certainly leave. So, “Little England” will be left (perhaps with its own lapdog, Wales, and perhaps with Northern Ireland in order to keep the Troubles from erupting again). Little England is a contemptuous moniker for a once-great nation that will deserve the international isolation it ends up with.

I maintain a “boycott list”: countries I will never set foot in because their people have chosen a path of racism, authoritarianism, and/or aggression. I am hereby adding Little England to that list, which now includes Austria, Hungary, Israel, Poland, and Russia. (Elections in Russia are hardly free and fair, but with Putin’s astronomical approval ratings, we know where the Russian people stand.) If I weren’t a US citizen, this country would certainly be on my boycott list, at least until the current regime were replaced.

©2017 Keith Berner

01.14.17 Israel. And the Democrats who support it.

I’m Jewish. (I feel I have to start all my comments on Israel by declaring my ethnicity, because so many Israel supporters conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. I am not a self-hater.)

The US actually allowed passage of a recent UN resolution condemning Israel’s settlement policy. Not that our country actually supported the resolution. But, by abstaining (i.e., by refusing to express a view), rather than vetoing (as the US almost always does when the topic of Israel comes up), our country took a baby step towards bringing its Middle East policy in alignment with its stated values.

Oh, the uproar this caused. AIPAC and other Likud-aligned US organizations expressed their customary outrage with their customary breathless bluster. Then, a majority of Democratic House members (109-76), including new MD Congressman Jamie Raskin (MD-8), voted to denounce the UN resolution, saying it was unfair to Israel. They joined an overwhelming majority of Republicans (233-4) to undermine President Obama’s gentle turn against rubber stamping everything Israel does.  (This gentle turn comes only after Obama committed $38 billion of our tax dollars to underwriting Likud and illegal settlements for 10 years to come).

Two years ago, our Senator — Ben Cardin — joined only four other Democrats to oppose the nuclear deal with Iran, perhaps Obama’s foremost foreign policy achievement. The other three “traitors” to the president were Robert Menendez (NJ), Joe Manchin (WV), and Chuck Schumer (NY). This graphic tells an interesting story:

Manchin is the outlier here: he is from a deep-red state and does not have a great record of party loyalty. The others, though, are rock-solid Dems who cast a rare vote against their party and president. And what do they have in common? Jewish identity (Schumer and Cardin) and reliance on Jewish support (those two, plus Menendez).

Is Israel being treated unfairly by the US and the world?

Certainly, there is a great deal of hostility to Israel from hypocritical anti-Semites whose behavior differs little from what they go after Israel for. Certainly, Israel has a right to paranoia, based on the Holocaust and the Arabs’ unremitting hostility and aggression.

But, even for those of us who believe Israel has a right to defend itself in a hostile world, there was never any justification for civilian occupation of foreign land or for Israel’s unjust treatment of its own Palestinian citizens. Since 1973, Israel’s aggressive de facto appropriation of other people’s land and sovereignty has turned it from victim to perpetrator. Even under brief periods of Labor Party rule (including right after the Oslo Peace Accords), Israel has never stopped expanding its settlements on the West Bank, stealing property that doesn’t belong to it.

Israel’s apologists in this country say (more or less), “Hey, no fair criticizing Israel, unless you rebuke in equal measure the knife-wielding Arabs who attack us.” A knife versus the most powerful military force in the region. Resident uprisings, sometimes violent, in the face of daily humiliation and nonstop brutality. At this point, it’s hard for me to see any distinction between the plight of the Palestinians and that of the Africans who had to battle Apartheid for decades, against all odds and the concerted power of South Africa, the US, and Britain. People with no recourse to justice and no hope of progress explode. Wouldn’t you?

Yeah, but what about all the other countries in the world that are oppressive, racist, and/or aggressive? Well, I certainly hate illiberal, bigoted regimes like Russia’s or Hungary’s, not to mention the numerous African states who are murdering and imprisoning their homosexual citizens. Obviously, Israel has no monopoly on outrageous behavior.

But there are three reasons why Israel deserves special opprobrium (at least from me):

1. Most of the other outrageous countries in the world are not fundamentally kept afloat by my tax dollars. The fact that I am paying for Israeli racism and oppression gives me a right – nay, a duty – to forcefully oppose its behavior and US support for it. (For what it’s worth, I’d love to see an end to US support for Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as well.)

2. I have special contempt for democracies whose people choose racism, oppression, or aggression. Israelis have been voting for right-wing governments for most of the country’s history. The last three elections have produced governments that are ever narrower, ever more nationalist, ever more fascist. I don’t blame the Saudi people the way I blame Israelis: Saudis have no input on their leaders, nor say in their policies.

I am hardly being unfair to Israel. I maintain a boycott list of countries where the citizens themselves are responsible for their countries’ policies, including Austria, Hungary, and Poland. If I weren’t an American, I would throw this country into that same category: a country where a functional majority chooses bigotry and imperialism.

3. The very fact of my Jewishness requires for me to take greater responsibility for the state supposedly founded in my name. I was raised without the Jewish religion. Rather, our religion at home was that of the Civil Rights Movement and opposition to the Vietnam War. I grew up understanding that — as a member of a historically oppressed people — I could not turn my back on oppression of others. My progressivism is rooted in my heritage. I would be betraying my parents if I were to support Israeli aggression or even only turn a blind eye to it.

How Jewish-American politicians contribute to anti-Semitism:

I get how Joe Manchin could side with the right-wing on the nuclear deal. I get how Jewish Americans who have long sided with neocon aggression or spent decades supporting authoritarian freaks in the name of anti-communism could find themselves on the “wrong” side on Israel. At least they’re being consistent with their values.

It’s another matter when the Cardins, Raskins, and Schumers of the US body politic vote against their party, their president, and their proclaimed values on only one issue: Israel. The more these politicians give Israel a hypocritical pass, the more they reinforce the idea in the rest of the world that there is no gap between Jewishness/Judaism and Likud. The more they destroy the very possibility (in the eyes of others) that Jews can be just, that Jews can be peaceful, that Jews can respect human rights and human dignity, the more hatred against Jews they engender.

And this leads us to the great self-defeating tragedy that Likud Jews are engaged in. Israel cannot survive as a democratic, Jewish state if it will not allow a two-state solution. Likud and the majority of Israeli voters who support it are dooming themselves either to a future of apartheid (I would say it has already arrived) or to being a minority in a new Palestine. The Israeli people are assuring a disastrous future for their homeland.

And hypocritical Jewish liberals in the US are undermining Jewish security and safety everywhere by demonstrating that they cannot be trusted on this topic. They sap their own power as progressives (making us progressives less likely to support them) and feed right into the thinking of anti-Semites who want to see Jews has a fifth column with a nefarious agenda.

Is the UN being unfair to Israel? Not this time, in any case. Am I being unfair to Israel? Excuse me, but no fucking way!

It is time for the US to join the rest of the civilized world (however much of that remains in this year of democracy-in-peril) in condemning Israel. (Abstention is not enough!) Further, we must stop underwriting that horrific regime and its racist people. It well past time for my elected representatives, no matter their ethnic or religious affiliation, to be true to their values and to earn my vote not only through a commitment to civil rights and civil liberties at home, but also abroad.

©2017 Keith Berner

04.17.16 Bernie Sanders for President (with caveats)

Bernie Sanders represents my values. It’s about time we had a national leader who is not only willing but eager to speak truth to power. Sanders is right to describe our economic and political systems as rigged for the wealthy and powerful (who, of course, are usually the same). He is right to condemn corporate corruption. He is right to speak out against a Democratic Party establishment (currently embodied by the odious DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz) that has tried repeatedly to rig the current presidential campaign in favor of the establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton.

From a progressive-values standpoint, Sanders has very few flaws. He didn’t suddenly discover the moral catastrophe of economic inequality because of pressure during this campaign. He has been speaking up for the left-out, the “little people,” ever since he ran for mayor of Burlington, decades ago. Before that, he was an active participant in the civil rights movement. (Hints from Clinton supporters like [for shame!] Congressman John Lewis [D-GA] that he might have been insufficiently so, have been proven a lie.) His own integrity and incorruptibility are beyond question.

The only less-than-bright spot in Bernie Sanders is his relative lack of enthusiasm for gun control, which is hardly surprising for a politician from a rural state. Attempts by Clinton to portray Sanders as a gun nut, though, are wildly off the mark.

So, why have I lacked passion in my support for Sanders for president? Partly, it’s because I assumed he never had a chance. Party, it has been my assumption that his nomination would doom the Democrats in November. (I have softened on this as his poll numbers against Trump and Cruz have remained higher than Clinton’s; though I still believe that his numbers would drop significantly under a full-throttled GOP onslaught.)

I have also been thrown by the almost obsessive opposition to Sanders by progressive figures like Nobel laureate and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. Krugman and others have been hammering away at how Sanders’s economic numbers don’t add up and how he lacks any reasonable plan for getting getting his program through a Congress that has stopped even the decidedly centrist Obama in his tracks.

I find these arguments compelling, but also have to remind myself (and you, dear reader) that almost no political candidate’s numbers add up or plans for success have any chance in the real world. Bernie Sanders’s campaign is aspirational. It is not a legislative program. And, Sanders is right that the only hope for progress in this country is a political revolution. That revolution isn’t going to start in Congress. But it has to start somewhere. If not Bernie Sanders, then who?!

Finally, I have been disturbed by Sanders’s almost complete failure to reach out to and captivate African Americans. I cannot imagine a political revolution in this country that does not include the very people who were the targets of America’s Original Sin and the country’s ongoing indifference to their daily lives and struggle. In creating his campaign, Sanders forgot African Americans and wrote off the South. To some extent, this was a reflection of his own skepticism about his chances. If he wasn’t really trying to win then it hardly mattered if he lost too many states with early primaries.

To some extent, Sanders’s blindness to building a real “rainbow coalition” (to use a phrase that ended up sounding empty in Jesse Jackson’s mouth), like his stance on guns, is a result of decades serving a lily-white rural state. Sanders has tried to repair the damage recently and had some success. He is certainly not a bigot himself. But his early failures figure into my relative lack of passion for his candidacy.

The New York State primary campaign has provided an opportunity for me to rekindle some passion. Sanders has shown his typical, unusual courage in speaking out against Israeli policy and Prince of Darkness Benyamin Netanyahu ­– in Brooklyn of all places! Sure, college students have been pushing for boycotts and some progressive Jewish leaders have been denouncing AIPAC and Likud. But an actual elected official speaking the truth about Israel? And a Jewish one, at that? Unheard of! (Your blogger is also Jewish, but foremost a humanist.) This alone reinforces my commitment to support Sanders over a Clinton, whose whole family swears allegiance not only to AIPAC and Likud, but also to the butchers in Cairo (Mubarak and Sisi) and Riyadh.

Hillary Clinton, meanwhile is a poster child for most of what is wrong in our political system and country. I’m glad she has moved decidedly left in the course of this campaign, under pressure from Bernie Sanders and his supporters. She says she now opposes free-trade-at-all-costs and Wall St. dominance. Her utterances on this and other topics are encouraging, if not wholly persuasive. (Remember, Barack Obama appointed Wall St. and the NSA to run his administration after sounding very different during his campaign.)

As I have written, I have particular loathing for the Clintons because their hubris leads them over and over again to waste political capital on scandals of their own making. Open the books on Whitewater in 1992 and there is no impeachment. Admit to flawed judgment and release all the emails in 2015 and “Emailgate” disappears. Release transcripts of the Goldman Sachs speeches and you start to climb out of the hole your politically incompetent decision to feed at that trough dug in the first place.

I will never understand how African Americans managed to forgive the Clintons for the explicitly racist campaign Bill ran on Hillary’s behalf in 2008, and the implicit racism of Hillary’s dog whistles for the folks who now support Trump in places like West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Now we have the spectacle of Bill’s shouting down Black Lives Matter protesters last week. (The thought of that man running loose in the White House gives me the [slick] willies.)

(I accept Hillary’s denunciation of the 1994 crime bill. Everyone has learned a lot since then, including her. This is a case where she should be applauded for growth, rather than condemned for flip-flopping.)

To the extent that Clinton’s consistent progressive rhetoric this campaign season can be believed, there remains one area of profound difference between her and Sanders: foreign policy. Clinton voted for the Iraq War and has tried to distance herself from that decision only out of political expediency. Her embrace of military intervention in Libya more recently shows a continued arrogance (your blogger was torn on the issue at the time for humanitarian reasons, but was not secretary of state). It’s not not only that Clinton puts too much stock in military solutions; it is also that she believes in an American mission to remake the world. Hillary Clinton is a neocon. The fact that the GOP neocon establishment has recently hinted at supporting her in November should give more circumspect foreign policy analysts pause.

(Your blogger is not an isolationist and has some fear that Sanders could be too much of one. As destructive as US involvement in the world has usually been, the chaos that would result from complete US disengagement would not be pretty.)

A Democrat better win in November. The stakes for anyone to the left of Attila the Hun are higher this year than perhaps ever in American history. Unlike in the disaster years of 1980 and 2000, Democrats now have precious few holds on power across the country. Even as the national GOP is providing an amusing political spectacle this year, right-wing freaks own outright a substantial majority of governorships, state legislatures, and school boards from coast to coast. A slightly unbalanced Supreme Court has broadly expanded the powers of the corporate elite in the past 20 years and game will be up if the GOP gets one more appointment there. The only thing standing in the way of a right-wing extremist abyss is the presidency.

In this context, it is frightening to hear Sanders supporters tout a “Bernie or Bust” line. It’s bad enough that Nader and his supporters deemed Gore the larger evil in 2000, leading to hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq, not to mention W’s myriad other policy disasters, which – at best – will take decades to recover from.

It seems unlikely now that the Democratic nominee will be anyone other than Hillary Clinton. Trump and Cruz may be flawed enough to lose even in the face of an uninspired Democratic electorate or a new Clinton scandal. But if Bernie supporters stay home, or – worse – continue to attack Clinton after the nomination is secured – they create unacceptable risk.

So, why am I still going to vote for Bernie Sanders in the Maryland Democratic primary on April 26? Because his voice still needs to be heard. Also, because if he can manage to win convincingly in the remaining primaries (which I doubt), he could just eke out a victory in July. (If Sanders does not win in New York this Tuesday, I will call publicly for him to tone down the anti-Clinton rhetoric.)

Bernie Sanders is an American hero for raising issues that Democrats have ignored for decades. He is worthy of your vote. But let not your love of Bernie now blind you to the greater imperative of Democratic victory in November.

03.05.16 Responsibility to protect: A moral dilemma in the Middle East

I just finished watching “The Square,” a moving documentary about the brief rise and harsh fall of the Egyptian revolution, 2011-13. In the film, we follow three activists (two liberals and one Islamist) who take part in the massive people-power overthrow of brutal dictator Hosni Mubarak. We see the military hijack the revolution and the Muslim Brotherhood betray it, resulting in the absolute religious dictatorship of Mohamed Morsi. The film ends as first the people and then the military, led by Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, overthrow Morsi.

“The Square” doesn’t show us the aftermath, as el-Sisi reinstates an absolute military dictatorship, murders thousands, and eventually releases Murbarak from prison. Neither do we witness the increase in terrorism across the country as Brotherhood supporters and the crushed remnants of liberal democrats wage a war of attrition against the military in a destroyed nation.

When I see or read about events like these, my heart breaks for the people on the ground. At the same time I am outraged about this country’s complicity. For decades, a United States, obsessed with stability for Israel, supported Mubarak with a blind eye to his terrors. (The Clintons, who consider the Mubaraks good friends, are – perhaps – the most complicit of our fellow citizens.) For a brief time, perhaps half the time that the liberal revolution seemed to have a chance, the US seemed to be on the right side in Egypt. But then the US backed the blatantly unfair elections that put the Brotherhood in power (elections do not equal democracy!).

The US switched back to supporting military oppression as soon the Morsi was overthrown. Only months after the el-Sisi massacre in Tahir Square and the full institution of rule by brute force, the shameful John Kerry (backed, of course, by Barack Obama) was in Cairo, embracing the butcher and praising him as a democrat.

The broader lessons here are (1) the US fails (at least its stated values, if not its great-power interests) when it chooses sides in fraught situations, (2) the US fails when it embraces dictatorships in the name of stability over human dignity, and (3) the US has been failing every single day for 50 years in supporting Israeli security over nearly every other priority.

+++++++++

In the international human rights field (where I spend my working hours), there is a concept called “responsibility to protect” (RTP). This noble principle is meant to prevent further Holocausts, Rwandas, and Srebenicas (to name three of myriad examples). The idea is that the rights of human beings trump those of regimes, that state sovereignty is subordinate to preventing atrocities and genocides. In fact, states with the means to intervene in such situations are required to intervene.

If one cares about human life and dignity, this seems an unimpeachable moral philosophy. Indeed RTP is why I supported US intervention, as Muammar Gaddafi prepared to slaughter his opponents in 2011. The recent two-part series in the New York Times “The Libya Gamble” focuses on Hillary Clinton’s advocacy for intervention and the irony of her hubris about positive outcomes, with the Iraq War disaster still in the present. Not only was I with Clinton in 2011, I was also – briefly – on the side of US military intervention in Syria in 2013.

The NYT stories cover not only the decision making leading to US intervention, but also the aftermath, as the West loses interest and Libya slides into chaos, becoming (perhaps) a greater hotbed of international terrorism and human suffering than even in Gaddafi’s worst years.

This story is not really about Clinton or just Libya. Rather is it about the helplessness of the West to predict or manage outcomes, even on those relatively rare (in my view) occasions when its intentions align with its values. The US destroyed Iraq, increasing Iran’s power and creating ISIS. The US helped turn Libya into a failed state. The US repeatedly supported the wrong side in Egypt.

So, what does this mean in regard to RTP? It is a terrible moral dilemma. How do the lives lost in Libya’s collapse compare to those if Gaddafi had massacred his opponents? How does human suffering in Syria compare to an unknown outcome if the US had started bombing the in 2013? Do we have more blood on our hands by staying (mostly) out of conflicts or by intervening and “owning” the result?

My belief in RTP has been fundamentally shaken by the NYT series, as I have related it back to events of the past 15 years.

The GOP and its unrepentant neocons admit no moral dilemmas. For them, the answer is always intervention and always military. They never acknowledge the great hypocrisy of US foreign policy over 170 years, as the US preached democracy, but propped up dictatorships in service to US business interests. They never give up their simplistic and arrogant ideology, in the face of complexity and limited ability to dictate outcomes.

I have not become a complete non-interventionist. We should have stopped the Rwandan genocide (the country is now ruled by a dictator who has brought universal healthcare and massive economic development to his impoverished people – another moral dilemma) and were right to stop the one in the Balkans (where a cold peace rules and underlying issues have never been resolved).

I guess where I land is that principles and ideology (whether RTP or GOP/neocon) are no excuse for not thinking, not seeking to grasp complexity, and – above all – not acting with humility. We can’t declare we will never act. But if we do not face the world with an acknowledgement of limited power and understanding, then positive outcomes are utterly impossible. Ultimately, morally fraught situations must be considered individually and after deep deliberation, rather than through a single, simple moral lens.

I have reluctantly come to agree with Obama’s decision not to become enmeshed in Syria (though, I condemn the shear incompetence that led him to declare “red lines” he was unwilling to enforce). In the midst of this horror, nonintervention is more responsible than the alternative. (And, we cannot know whether doing a better job of arming the so-called democratic rebels in 2012-13 would have made us proud. We can see a long history of US-supplied arms being used against us after we exit the bloodbaths we have created). But, deciding not to intervene militarily, does not, cannot, excuse US support for the el-Sisis of the world. Egypt is a case where the moral thing to do was to exit with our tail between our legs and let el-Sisi sink or swim on his own. (As for Israel, it deserves no support at all from the United States as long as it remains a racist, hegemonist power.)

©2016 Keith Berner

08.26.15 Maryland’s Senators Silent on Iran Deal

Here is my open letter to Senator Ben Cardin. I will be sending a similar letter to Barbara Mikulski. Maryland Democrats should be outraged that both of our senators appear to be in thrall to Likud and AIPAC. Express your views to Cardin (202-224-4524) and  Mikulski (202-224-4654) or by visiting their websites. Though this should hardly matter on the substance of the issue, Cardin is Jewish and Mikulski is not. Just the same, the latter has been known to consistently take the AIPAC line on Israel.

Dear Senator Cardin:

I read in yesterday’s New York Times, that you are undecided on the nuclear deal with Iran.

Your fence-sitting is disturbing, because the logic in favor of the agreement is an absolute no-brainer: whether or not you love the details or the way Obama and Kerry negotiated, the horse has left the barn. The sanctions regime is dead, dead, dead.

If you liked the George W. Bush administration’s cowboy unilateralism, you’ll love US foreign policy after Congress kills the agreement with Iran. The US would be on its own internationally (with Israel is its sole ally). Not only will usual suspects, like Russia and China, rush to do business with Iran, but so will Europe. In fact, the rush is already on. And without any international sanctions regime, the only remaining leverage the United States (and Israel) will have will be military.

If you oppose this agreement, do you have a plan for recovering US influence and prestige afterwards? Do you relish a unilateral war that will cost enormous blood and treasure and only briefly delay Iran’s nuclear progress?

The question is not whether this negotiated agreement is perfect (by definition, no negotiated agreements are), but rather, what is the alternative? I have yet to hear a rational one from the belligerent right.

We know why the GOP is lockstep opposed to the agreement. First, there is the party’s long history of opposition to negotiations and arms control in principle (see this Times article reminding us of right-wing opposition to even Reagan’s and Eisenhower’s talks with the Soviets). And there’s the fact that anything and everything Obama does sends the GOP into paroxysms of feigned rage.

We know why Israel is opposed: it is in thrall to the racist, hegemonic regime it elected. That regime is, sadly, behaving contrary to Israel’s own interests, but is blind to this fact, as is the aggressively right-wing pro-Israel lobby in this country (led by AIPAC).

I cannot fathom why any Democrat – regardless of creed – would be in opposition. I am embarrassed that the only Democrats in stated opposition are Jewish (Schumer of NY) or count on Jewish votes (Menendez of New Jersey and Schumer).

I am a Jewish American. I use that formulation, since – in an irony of English-language construction – it is the second element of that phrase that is dominant. That is, I am American more than I am Jewish.

Are you? If you are, then your equivocation is uncalled for. You must prioritize US interests over Israel’s (notwithstanding Israel’s current inability to recognize what its true interests are).

Ben Cardin: You face a choice. Are you going to be a Democrat representing Maryland or a Likudnik representing Israel? Maryland Democrats can wait no longer for you to make up your mind and do the right thing.

Sincerely,

Keith Berner

©2015 Keith Berner

04.01.15 Thank you, Indiana. Thank you Arkansas.

I just love it when places where I would have no interest in going to under any circumstances manage to convince the rest of the world to stay away. Really, why would anyone ever want to go to Indiana or Arkansas? What is so gratifying is to observe the enormous backlash against those two centers of fundamentalism and bigotry. It’s a big deal when Apple’s Tim Cook opines in the in the Washington Post:

This isn’t a political issue. It isn’t a religious issue. This is about how we treat each other as human beings. Opposing discrimination takes courage. With the lives and dignity of so many people at stake, it’s time for all of us to be courageous.”

Heck, even Walmart – a corporation every liberal loves to hate – has put out forceful statements against discrimination in recent days.

Of course the dozen or so GOP presidential hopefuls deliciously don’t get it. Even the supposedly moderate Jeb Bush showed his love to Indiana bigots. Why is this delicious? As Dana Milbank pointed out yesterday, the GOP is back to fighting the Culture War. But, this ain’t 2002 anymore. The more the party of know-nothings continues to focus on a return to the Dark Ages, the more they alienate needed voters (as if their utter inability to put forth a positive agenda or conduct the basic fundamentals of governing weren’t damaging enough).

But, wait: the schadenfreude isn’t done! In coming days or weeks, Indiana and Arkansas are going to walk this back. You see, the party of preachers loves the Almighty Dollar more than they love their hard-right God Almighty. Though I find the views of religious zealots offensive, there is something respectable about having the courage of one’s convictions. What we are now going to witness is a spectacle of people who truly loathe homosexuals pretending they don’t. Why? Because their wallets are threatened by the commitment of cities, businesses, and individuals across the country to just say no. For shame: if you’re going to hate, a few bucks shouldn’t be enough to buy your love.

Now, I won’t care when the hypocrites rescind or amend these hateful laws. I’m in it for life: Not only will I never set foot in either of those states (exception: I’d be willing to drive through Indiana if I were on my way to Chicago), but I will stay the fuck out of most of Red America. Not this week. Not this month. Forever.

The key for me in deciding what places to boycott is when the popular will in those places chooses fascism or bigotry. Examples of places I’ll never set foot include Austria (which elected the infamous Kurt Waldheim president after his association with the Nazis came to light), Hungary (where the hard-right, anti-Semitic regime of Viktor Orban controls about 2/3 of parliament), and Israel (which just gave the racist Benyamin Netanyahu yet another term of office).

©2015 Keith Berner

 

02.02.14 SodaStream: The shame of Scarlett Johansson

For those who have been asleep the past week, this is about that popular at-home beverage maker SodaStream, which happens to be manufactured on land Israel stole from Palestinians. The Ma’ale Adumim settlement, described by The Jewish Daily Forward as “loathed by Israeli peace activists,” was taken from five Palestinian towns in the 1970s, as part of a “mass expropriation.” Foreign Policy describes it as “the settlement that broke the two-state solution” by making a contiguous state nearly impossible to achieve and cutting off Palestinian access to the Dead Sea and Jordan valley.

This is also about movie star Scarlett Johansson, who has represented the anti-hunger and pro- human rights organization Oxfam for eight years (six as “ambassador”), until this week. Johansson is to appear in a Super Bowl ad for SodaStream today, a paid gig that is part of her agreement to be a “brand ambassador” for the company. Well, it turns out that Oxfam considers the two ambassadorships to be incompatible:

Oxfam believes that businesses, such as SodaStream, that operate in settlements, further the ongoing poverty and denial of rights of the Palestinian communities that we work to support. Oxfam is opposed to all trade from Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law.

So, Johansson has had to choose between global charitable work and cold, hard cash to add to her Hollywood-fueled fortune. Cash won out. We now know who Johansson is and can rest easy at night with the assurance that she’ll scrape enough together to send her kids to college or buy a yacht. What a relief.

I’m a seltzer addict. I have had two SodaStreams (one for at home and one for at work) for a couple of years now. I love the constant, convenient access to my favorite beverage at a fraction of grocery-store cost. I love even more that I am no longer buying and tossing (recycling, actually) hundreds of plastic bottles a year. Indeed, a major market for SodaStream is environmentalists like me.

Though my two soda machines are paid for, I have continued sending my dollars to the Israeli owners of the company every time I swap one of their proprietary CO2 canisters for a replacement. Since I learned of the product’s origin a couple of weeks ago, I have been searching for alternatives.

The landscape is bleak. Global Exchange has a post on alternatives, but they consist mostly of very expensive single-use carbonators, which will litter land just like the plastic bottles. A couple of fledgling competitors to SodaStream have gone out of business. I found sites for DIYers who want to make their own CO2 from dry ice or chemical reactions. (None of this sounds dangerous, just a giant pain in the ass.)

For those of us who already own a SodaStream, the only viable alternative seems to be to purchase CO2 canisters used for paintball, use an adapter to make them fit SodaStream, and then have them refilled at a paintball center, sporting goods store, or welding supply store. Some online research will show you where the closest ones are to you. It’s so much easier to exchange my SodaStream canisters at the hardware store around the corner, but I conclude it’s worth driving a few miles to one of these other sources in order to live my values.

Back the controversy. When I posted a call on neighborhood listservs for SodaStream alternatives, a neighbor posted a link to a Gawker article making the same claim as Johansson and SodaStream’s owners: that the factory is a place for Palestinian-Israel camaraderie and that the Palestinian workers are paid better and treated better than if they had no jobs or were employed by other Palestinians.

I‘m not the least surprised that Palestinian employees of SodaStream are supporting their employer, especially when they are quoted by name (as in the Gawker article). These individuals pay the family bills with the money they earn at the plant. By asking them what they think, we are demanding them to choose between their personal self-interest (which I do not blame them for!) and the larger struggle for justice.

It’s not only Gawker. An internet search on “palestinian views sodastream” reveals more articles and posts where Palestinians and others praise SodaStream as an employer and the economic benefits of working there. (That Fox News is one highly ranked source of this view in Google’s search results does not – by itself – discredit the argument, but it does give some perspective on who is lining up on which side.)

Contrary views come include those of Truth-Out (“Scarlett Johansson, There’s a line between Israel and Palestine and SodaStream is Over the Line”) and The Jewish Daily Forward (“Love Israel. Oppose BDS. Reject SodaStream”). A boycott of trade with settlements is also endorsed by Peace Now (the the Israeli peace movement).

This entire issue is fraught with moral ambiguity. How ought seltzer lovers weigh their environmental obligations against their humanitarian ones? How ought humanitarians weigh their concern for the well being of the families who depend on income from SodaStream against those who suffer under the Israel occupation?

I suggest we look for guidance from the moral greats. I ask myself, what would Gandhi, Mandela, and King say about trading with oppressors?

I examine the “neighborhoods” of each position. Do I feel more comfortable living next door to the self-interested arguments of SodaStream and Johansson or Oxfam’s ideals-based approach? As a US peace movement veteran, is my moral abode closer to Fox News or Peace Now?

It is not my right to make moral and ethical decisions for others. But, as a dedicated humanist, it is my duty to struggle with the issues and justify my conclusion. I am choosing to side against the horrific Israeli theft of and occupation of Palestinian lands, not to mention the daily humiliation and oppression the occupation metes out. I take this stand even while I acknowledge that individual Palestinians may indeed benefit from their oppressor’s presence.

Another listserv contributor has just weighed in, calling “picking on Israel” anti-Semitic. I am Jewish. I was raised without the religion, but with a deep-seated belief in the obligation of my oppressed people to oppose oppression everywhere. It was as Jews that my family  joined the front lines of the Civil Rights movement and marched on Washington to end the Vietnam War (my first visits to DC, when I was a kid).

There is a huge danger for Jews in  my-Israel-right-or-wrong mentality and the declaration that to criticize Israel is equivalent to hating Jews. Telling the world that Israel equals Jewish is to invite and incite the anti-Semitism. The bigots who hate Jews, people of color, homosexuals, and so many others are going to keep hating. They need no justification. But what about humanists the world over? Do Jews really want to make the argument that they can’t oppose Israel without hating all of us?

Moral thickets abound, rendering black-white arguments more gray. One fact is clear in the current imbroglio, however: Scarlett Johansson is a loathsome profiteer whose pretense of support for the downtrodden has been exposed as just that: a pretense. When push came to shove, she chose profit over humanity.

©2014 Keith Berner

11.19.13 Who cares what Israel thinks?

If I see one more front-page story or editorial highlighting Israel’s opposition to a potential accord with Iran, I think I’ll puke. For decades the US has been funding immoral Israeli land grabs and undermining our own strategic interests in the process. Israel, through its minions in AIPAC interferes  not only in US foreign policy, but also in our domestic politics. (Bibi Netanyahu was like an honorary member of the Romney campaign last year.) Now we have to read about what Bibi thinks and whether he approves of what we think? Any accord with Iran will be good or not so good based on its merits. Bibi isn’t relevant. Paying attention to him only makes him think he is.

©2013 Keith Berner

12.03.12 Congratulations, Palestine

I hereby congratulate the people of Palestine on their recent initial step towards international recognition. And I am deeply ashamed that the United States was among only nine UN members to vote against granting Palestine nonmember observer status at the UN. The hall of shame includes also: Canada, the Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, and Panama. Many Western Europeans voted in favor, including: Austria, Belgium,  Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. You know you’re in bad company when every single Nordic country is voting against you.

Of course, Israel responded to this oh-so-tiny move towards justice by announcing an aggressive new settlement-buidling program on West Bank land they have stolen  from the Palestinians. This new plan will serve to divide the northern and southern West Bank in such a manner that a contiguous West Bank may no longer be possible, “represent[ing] an almost fatal blow to remaining chances of securing a two-state solution,” according to a press officer for UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon.

In reaction to the Israeli announcement, Britain, France, Spain, Sweden and Denmark have withdrawn their ambassadors. Meanwhile, the US is “reiterating [its] long standing opposition to Israeli settlement activity,” and continuing to send your and my tax dollars to Israel to pay for the new settlements.

©2012 Keith Berner

11.16.12 Cut off Israel, now!

I really wish I had posted this before the latest hostilities between Israel and Hamas. I have indeed had this one in my head since a couple of weeks ago. Now, I will look mean because Israel is once again painting itself as a hapless victim with no choice but to inflict massive pain on its enemies. And, to be fair, if I were living in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, I wouldn’t care right now who is right and wrong, historically — I would simply want my state to protect me.

But, let’s take a step back. Jews were victims for thousands of years, culminating in the Holocaust. Israel was in extremely dangerous circumstances, mostly not of its own making, through the 1970s or early 1980s. But once Israel began appropriating land that did not belong to it and populating it with civilians who had no business being there (and in defiance of international law), it became — on balance — the perpetrator, not the victim. That balance has become more and more out of whack in the years since. Even during the Oslo peace process, Israel kept stealing land and populating it with civilians. In the last decade, Israelis have elected one after another hard right wing government. It seems that there is no left remaining in that country. When the masses choose bigotry and violence, there is no more valid claim to victimhood.

This is not to say the Palestinians (or the Arab states, in general) have been all good. Hardly. Mostly, I think they and the Israelis deserve each other.

I have long believed that the US should have been reducing aid to Israel year by year, as long as that country kept up its insidious aggression. I think all aid should have been cut off by the turn of the century.

What has happened in the past year, brings a new urgency to this call. Just as Israel has been clamoring for a disastrous war with Iran, they have also begun meddling in our internal affairs. That’s right: your and my tax dollars have been underwriting Bibi Netanyahu’s blatant alliance with Sheldon Adelson, Mitt Romney, and significant portions of the GOP to drive Barack Obama from office.

This is beyond the pale.

Right-wing Jewish Americans (many of whom are avowed neocons) and their buddies among Christian fundamentalists who believe that Israeli instigated war will bring back Jesus, have been claiming for decades that Israel is a crucial, strategic ally: a bulwark in the Middle East. During the Cold War, there may have been a wee bit of truth to that, since every international conflict was related to the epic struggle between the US and the Soviets.

The fall of the Soviet Union begs the question: strategic bulwark against what? The answer? A bulwark against the enmity the US faces as a result of its alliance with Israel. That is, the US needs Israel as an ally because Israel is the US’s ally.

This country cannot be an honest broker in the Middle East, as long as it underwrites everything that Israel does, not only in taxpayer dollars, but also in UN votes and diplomacy.

The time has come to shed ourselves of this albatross. Not only would this save us a boatload of cash and enhance our diplomatic standing in the world, it is also the morally correct thing to do.

Except where there is an overwhelming justification, the US should not be associating itself with right-wing hegemonic states.Further, Israeli misbehavior is not in Israel’s own interest. Israel has nearly extinguished any possibility of a two-state solution, as it stumbles along an inevitable path toward outright fascism and apartheid. A giant splash of cold water from an erstwhile blind ally (the US) might force Israel back from its self-created brink and towards a sustainable future. If throwing that cold water on Israeli aggression is not the morally correct thing to do, I don’t know what is.

©2012 Keith Berner

12.10.10 Evil & Betrayal

I’m examining my overwhelming feeling of rage against President Obama and the Democrats.

After all, it isn’t they who came up with the idea of putting the country in hock and stealing from the poor so that the ultra-wealthy could be even wealthier.  That idea is inherently evil, made more so by the lack of even theoretical claims (however misguided) that this radical redistribution might provide some benefit to the overall economy.  (In case you haven’t been following the analysis, giving more money to the ultra-wealthy doesn’t produce any stimulative effect on the economy, because the ultra-wealthy already have all the cash they need and won’t spend any extra influx, like the poor and middle class would.  And it is spending – not saving – that will create jobs and stabilize the economy.)

The full-time commitment to serve the wealthy and only the wealthy — as the highest priority in the land — was invented by the GOP and is nearly wholly owned by them (with some so-called “moderate” Dems joining in).  The GOP is evil from top to bottom and in between.

So why is my anger at the Dems often so much more palpable to me?

It’s like my feelings about Israel.  It would be very had to make an objective case that Israel ranks at the top of countries in terms of mistreatment of minorities, human rights abuses, and illegal hegemonistic agression towards its neighbors.  But my outrage about Israel is so much more present in my consciousness than is my anger at China or Russia (for example).  Partly, of course, this is because my tax dollars are paying for Israeli crimes.

But there’s something else at play here:  I expect Israel — supposed democracy, home to “my” people — to be better than that.  I’m also so overwhelmed by the magnitude of evil perpetrated by China and Russia — and by the shear size of those countries — that I can’t grasp it in my little brain.  My utter helplessness and hopelessness in the face of big evil makes me shove it out of my consciousness.

Back to US politics.  I expect — I need better from the Democrats.  It is a simple, immutable, HUGE fact of life that Republicans are evil.  It is Democrats who are supposed to stop them.

I’m realizing as I type this: betrayal is what sets off my very present, very conscious fury.  And I am furious with Obama and the Democrats again.  As usual.   These fucking idiots – these weak, cowardly, incompetent Democrats – consistently hand the rope to hang us to those who certainly will.  Giving away the store before negotiations have begun.  Failing to make clear convincing arguments to the American people.  Infighting.  Self-hatred.  Fearing shadows.

How bad is it?  Bad enough that Commander-in-Sellout, Barack Obama – the man who can speechify when it comes to campaigning but can’t say a coherent, persuasive, progressive word in office – has turned on us.  This utter failure as president has the gall to call progressives “sanctimonius”?!  With friends like this . . .

But, of course, Obama isn’t our friend.  Neither was Bill Clinton, whose own failures and flaws led to the GOP wave of 2004 and then spent the rest of his term pitching right-wing ideas and just plain enjoying the company of reactionaries better than that of liberals.

Of course, the reality is that Democratic betrayal is as expected and immutable as GOP evil.  Maybe I’d be better off trying to shove the Dems out of my consciousness.  But, then where would I turn?

Answer: nowhere.  Hanging on to the constant betrayers is all I have in this godforsaken political system.  It’s just extremely hard to hold on to any hope at all when betrayal is the best one can hope for.

©2010 Keith Berner

04.17.09 Not Another Dime for Israel

US Aid to Israel serves nobody’s interests – especially not the Jews’.

Let’s start with the obligatory I’m-not-an-anti-Semite defensive statements:

I’m Jewish.  The Holocaust was real.  It was certainly among the greatest crimes of human history.  The Jewish people (as a religion and a nationality) need a homeland.

It is not my intent to revisit the question of whether the Jewish homeland should have been established when, where, and how it was. (What land belongs to whom depends entirely on the historical moment one chooses to start with, after all).  Rather, it is to identify the truth that has prevailed at least since the 1980s: Israel is a racist, hegemonist state, significantly financed by American tax dollars and by the contributions of misguided Jewish-Americans and right-wing Christians.  Without this country’s support, Israel never would have made the transformation from international victim to international pariah.

Israel embarked on that catastrophic transformation the minute it began to settle civilians on occupied territory.  Though many Arabs (and some leftists) may disagree – I would have had no quibble with Israel’s continuing a military occupation of territory conquered in 1967, as long as the surrounding powers were unwilling to make peace and adjust borders.  But once it began to pursue a religiously and ideologically inspired “Greater Israel,” purposely expanding its borders and stealing others’ land, it no longer had any claim to justice or international support.

It is important to note (as seldom is noted in the US media) that Israel continued rapid expansion of its illegal and immoral settlements during the entire Oslo Peace Process and under Labor governments.  There is no doubt that the PLO blew an historic opportunity (one of their favorite hobbies) by refusing to consummate a peace agreement in the 90s.  But the fact that the Palestinians are stupid does not mitigate Israeli guilt for ongoing theft and oppression.

Of course, it gets worse.  Israel has been quietly mistreating its Arab minority all along.  Most countries mistreat their minorities.  But not all countries show rapidly increasing support for apartheid-like policies and calls for expulsion (aka “ethnic cleansing”).  And that’s the key point: a majority of the Israeli public — expressing free will through democratic elections — has now declared explicit support for aggression, oppression, and racism.

When the Austrians voted overwhelmingly for Kurt Waldheim (and then continued to show huge support for right-wing extremist politicians), I decided I would never set foot in that deeply racist and anti-Semitic country.  By the same token, if I were not a US citizen and resident, I would have boycotted the US once W won a clear majority in 2004, because the American people freely chose torture, aggressive war, and contempt for the rest of the world.

When democratic countries thumb their noses at international law and moral norms, they deserve to be renounced and isolated.  I think the US should have begun to reduce funding for Israel in the 1980s, once the latter’s hegemonistic aims became apparent.  In 2009, there can no longer be any doubt of the correct moral course.

But, this is not just about morality.  The perpetual claim that the US shares strategic interests with Israel is a bald-faced lie, perpetrated by the infamous pro-Israel lobby and its amen corner among Christian fundamentalists.  (The latter see Israeli aggression as the necessary precursor to Christ’s return, at which point – ironically — Jews won’t be allowed into heaven.)  Trade with Israel is minute.  Military and intelligence ties would hardly be necessary, if the US weren’t alienating the rest of the world through its alliance with Israel.  There is no realist argument that the US-Israel alliance makes Americans wealthier or safer.

Just as the US is held hostage by the NRA to a never-ending plague of gun violence, so is it held hostage by AIPAC & Co.  This evil (and, dare I say, anti-American) lobby shuts down any honest public discourse and perpetuates the misappropriation of US tax dollars to undermine US interests and prevent Israel from dealing with reality.

That last point is the ultimate irony.  If the US had begun making aid to Israel conditional on that country’s behavior 25 years ago, Israel would have had to choose then between morality and immorality, between enlightened, long-term self-interest and national suicide.  No better than any enabler, the US chose – and chooses today – to help make Israel’s survival untenable.

For those of us who are not anti-Semitic, who acknowledge and feel deeply the history of the Jews as a hated, oppressed people, this is a fundamental part of the outrage: a conspiracy of right-wing extremists oceans apart has come close to making a just, democratic, safe haven for Jews an impossibility for the indefinite future.  That outcome is at hand.

Meanwhile, the pro-Israel lobby’s persistent conflation of criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism adds to the tragedy, by muddying the vital distinction between that which is Israeli and that which is Jewish.  The just cause of Palestinian and Arab rights – the righteousness of anti-imperialism – is thus turned into a crusade against Jews, the very thing that AIPAC and the ADL claim to be working against.

For those of us who believe that being Jewish is equivalent to being humanist – compassion for the oppressed, commitment to peace and justice – the Israeli moral nightmare is very hard to bear indeed.

Final thought: if ending aid to Israel requires some act of balance, cut loose the horrific dictatorship in Egypt at the same time!

©2009 Keith Berner