On September 15, 2008 the Attorney General of Massachusetts, Martha Coakley, sent a letter to the Secretary of the Commonwealth, William Galvin, saying why an anti-Zionist public policy question submitted by the Somerville Divestment Project (SDP) should appear on the ballot in Somerville and Cambridge in November.
Specifically, the Attorney General spelled out why the objections raised by a Mr. William A. McDermott, Jr, an attorney representing local Zionists and Zionist organizations, were unpersuasive. This is what the Atty. General wrote:“The one question warranting particular comment is proposed for the 25th and 27th Middlesex Representative Districts and asks: ‘Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a non-binding resolution calling on the federal government to support the right of all people, including non-Jewish Palestinian citizens of Israel, to live free from laws that give more rights to people of one religion than another?’
It has been suggested by an interested member of the public that ‘this question is in fact two questions in one and therefore should not be approved for the ballot by the Attorney General or in the alternative should be reworded to separate the question into two distinct questions.’ I am unable to agree with the first suggestion; the question asks whether state legislators should ask the federal government to affirm a principle, and then gives an example of a group to which that principle may apply. Nor may I adopt the second suggestion, because the Attorney General and Secretary have no authority to take a single question submitted under G.L. c53, sec. 19, and split it into two questions to be voted upon separately.”
The Zionists, who are used to getting their way routinely in such matters in the United States , failed in this instance primarily because of the winning strategy of the SDP. The SDP takes the ideological offensive against Zionism by championing basic human rights for all people, including Palestinians. The Zionists have no persuasive argument against this. The best they could come up with, in their effort to keep the SDP question off the ballot, was the assertion that a question about the rights of “all people” introduces a second and different question by explicitly including “non-Jewish Palestinian citizens of Israel ” as people too.
We have Mr. McDermott’s letter to the Atty. General’s office, and this is what he wrote:
“The Proponents should really have to pick between the two questions they are asking (or try to put both on the ballot separately) which, if clearly worded, would look something like this:
“(1) ‘Shall the State Representative for this district be instructed to vote in favor of calling on Federal Government to support the right of all people to live free from laws which give more rights to people of one religion than another.’
“and/or
“(2) ‘Shall the State Representative for this district be instructed to vote in favor of calling on Federal Government to support the right of non-Jewish Palestinians of Israel to live free from laws which give more rights to people of one religion than another.’”
The Attorney General saw the absurdity of McDermott’s argument. That is why she rejected it on the grounds that the SDP question was a single question that asks the federal government “to affirm a principle, and then gives an example of a group to which that principle may apply.”
In essentially asserting that “all people” does not include “non-Jewish Palestinians,” Mr. McDermott, probably without even realizing it, revealed the racist premise of Zionism: that Palestinians are not really people, and therefore do not deserve the basic human rights that “all people” deserve, such as the right to return to one’s country (article 13b of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) or the right to live free from laws that discriminate against people who are not Jewish.
The SDP’s strategy of championing universal values like equality under the law and human rights for “all people, including Palestinians,” drives the Zionists crazy. Zionists want the world to see the conflict in Israel/Palestine as a conflict between Jews and anti-Semites. Zionists have honed all of their arguments and propaganda towards winning the argument when it is framed this way. But when the SDP says the conflict is actually between those who support universal values and human rights for all people versus those who don’t, the Zionists are reduced to incoherent babbling.
Thus McDermott, in his letter, was reduced to this:
“We further contend that by presenting confusing language by joining independent issues in one question that the voters are subject to a ‘bait and switch’ tactic (ie, ‘Voters thinking that they were voting on general human rights issues regarding refugees or religious freedom later discovering that their vote is being used only as a part of a campaign to condemn Israel’).”
What is McDermott saying here? He’s simply expressing frustration that the Israeli government he is trying to defend from criticism has no defense against the accusation that it denies people equality under the law and basic human rights. What drives Mr. McDermott and the Zionists crazy is the fact that the problem isn't in the wording of the SDP’s question. The problem is Israel 's violation of the human rights of people who, while not being Jewish, are certainly people, even if the Zionists wish to deny the fact.
A question still remains. Why did the Attorney General play it straight in this case? She could have sided with the Zionists. Virtually all of the politicians in the United States are pro-Zionist and unprincipled on the issue, but we have no evidence that the Attorney General, herself, is. It is possible that she kept the SDP question on the ballot out of a simple desire to be fair. In either case she probably wished to distance herself from any association with the embarrassingly absurd and implicitly racist arguments made by the Zionists. *
The failure of Zionism’s lawyer in this incident demonstrates that the SDP’s strategy of 1) attacking Zionism for its denial of human rights, 2) using language designed to make it crystal clear that we are simply saying that Palestinians should be treated the same as everybody else—no better and no worse, and 3) building a movement of ordinary people on this basis, is a powerful strategy that is clearly a source of much consternation for the local Zionists and their frustrated lawyer. Also, it is a strategy that is difficult for politicians openly to oppose.
Round #1 of the 2008 election goes to the SDP. We hope this initial victory will help others see the strength of our strategy and we invite them to replicate SDP’s work. We also hope this inspires others to join us in our effort to persuade a large majority of voters in Somerville and Cambridge this November to vote YES on Question #4 for equal rights for all people, including Palestinians.
Get involved and help us demonstrate the ordinary person's support for Equal Rights for Palestinians, and all human rights for Palestinians, not just in Somerville and Cambridge but eventually every district in Massachusetts.
Ron Francis
for SDP Active Members Group
0 Have Your Say!:
Post a Comment