I only recently learned of Illinois Governor Pat Quinn’s trip to Israel this past summer (2011) for a ‘week-long educational mission where he sealed two important agreements and received briefings from high-ranking Israeli officials, academic experts and business leaders on topics ranging from high-tech development (read Motorola), energy, water conservation and environmentalism (sic) to disaster preparedness, Iran, and U.S.-Israel relations.’ This is reported on the website of Jewish United Fund/Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago. The reader is expected, of course, to find the high-minded and triumphant tone of this article to be unproblematic.

The article states: “The Governor’s educational visit was part of a JUF initiative that, for the past two decades, has brought influential leaders to Israel.” Quinn signed a “formal agreement on academic cooperation between Ben Gurion University of the Negev in Beersheba and the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) to establish a wide-ranging partnership. The agreement will promote faculty and student exchanges, joint research, and other academic activities of mutual interest. The agreement greatly expands the existing relationship between the universities in the field of public health.”

Beyond principled opposition to such academic agreements between our public universities and those of the apartheid Jewish state, it’s important to note that the academic merit and social outcomes of such agreements are obviously limited by the political context that provokes fundamental opposition from advocates of social justice. In relation to Motorola, for example, it’s impossible to believe that there will be public discussion promoting the public interest regarding military applications in general or surveillance technology in particular.

Similarly, such an agreement cannot conceivably promote consideration of fundamental and historical water resource and environmental degradation issues pertaining to political conflict between Israel and Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. It’s also highly unlikely that the essentially political nature of such an academic agreement would allow or encourage researchers to address the public health concerns of Palestinians, either as citizens of Israel or in the occupied territories; nor would they likely address, for example, the conditions of African immigrants in Israel who find themselves increasingly despised and unwanted.

A biased and discriminatory political agenda, dictated and limited by Israeli state interests and U.S. hegemonic interests in the region, is thus inevitably part and parcel of such academic agreements. The public university and its scholarly and scientific reputation is commandeered and exploited by the Israel Lobby in order to serve and legitimize that agenda.

Beyond this particular “academic exchange,” my perspective is informed by the principles of the BDS movement and the challenges inevitably presented to the movement by the Israel Lobby’s incessant pressure on public officials and institutions at all levels. As a long-term resident of Illinois and employee of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC), I have been a journalist and activist regarding the manner in which Jewish and Zionist institutions have come to occupy the putatively public space of our public university—clearly to the detriment of dignity and justice for the Palestinians, as well as informed discussion in a democratic and scholarly context of the Israel/Palestine issue.

The developments noted above constitute egregious extensions of the Zionist infrastructure that has been promoted by the Israel Lobby in state government in general and in public higher education in Illinois. I would hope that this opportunistic, outrageous, and cynical agreement between Governor Quinn and Israeli officials creates a critical mass of awareness and potential activism within and beyond the BDS movement in Illinois. I would hope to see a clear response to the manner in which the Lobby feels entitled to self-righteously promote—without objection—what are repugnant and sectarian political interests in state politics and higher education—disingenuously and transparently framed in terms of technological, scientific, and economic development.

From my perspective as a Jewish pro-Palestinian activist in Urbana-Champaign, I have observed two primary developments: first, the establishment of a privately-funded Program for Jewish Culture and Society two decades ago and its attendant moral emphasis on the Holocaust and Jewish victimization in general; second, the use of PJCS as an institutional and moral umbrella for an Israel Lobby-funded and baldly propagandistic “Israel Studies Project,” which has moreover been clearly racist in its exclusion of Palestinian Israelis from its purview.

Blatant conflicts of interest regarding PJCS in relation to the Israel Lobby were obvious from the start, and dovetail with Governor Quinn’s junket. The promoters of PJCS were two professors with prominent positions in local Jewish institutions—religious, secular, and Zionist. One professor, Michael Shapiro, is the father of Daniel Shapiro, current U.S. ambassador to Israel.

In 2004, Michael Shapiro worked closely with Michael Kotzin, JUF Executive Vice President, to fund the Israel Studies Project, part of a state-wide effort by the Israel Lobby at both public and private universities. Kotzin wrote in the Forward in 2004 that the “manner in which Israel and the Middle East are taught about in the nation’s university classrooms has increasingly come to the fore as one of the most difficult and far-reaching challenges facing the Jewish community.” In translation, this is to say that the Lobby needs to take serious measures to intervene in academia to promote Israel’s interests, in response to students who are increasingly enlightened regarding the plight of the Palestinians.

Kotzin, a long-time Lobby apparatchik in Chicago, accompanied Governor Quinn to Israel, commenting “It is particularly gratifying to be here with Gov. Quinn today when that partnership moves to a new level.”Quinn’s group was addressed in Israel by Ambassador Shapiro, who tellingly “called his address to the group ‘his first official duty’ after arriving the day before to assume his responsibilities as U.S. Ambassador to Israel.”

I would add that the Urbana campus has also procured, for the past two academic years, a visiting Jewish-Israeli professor of Israel Studies whose position is by no means disinterestedly funded by the Schusterman Family Foundation and the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise(AICE). According to the Jewish Virtual Library, “The aim of the program is to present American students with a broad understanding of Israel’s history, society, politics, culture and relations with its neighbors and the broader international community.” In plainer language, the aim of this program—as of the Israel Studies Project at UIUC and the broader Israel Studies movement in general—is to promote a sanitized version of Zionism, Israel, and Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians. The current visiting professor at the Urbana Campus, Rhona Seidelman, has well-served this purpose.

It is unacceptable that a visiting professor essentially hired by the Israel Lobby is charged with teaching the one class offered at UIUC on the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict. Perhaps needless to say, UIUC has never hired a professor of Palestinian or Arab background specifically in relation to teaching and research regarding the topic of Israel/Palestine. Regarding any other oppressed minority, it would be unheard of for faculty members to be bought and paid for by interests promoting and justifying such oppression. But in the case of the Israel Lobby on campus, it is business as usual. At UIUC and other campuses in Illinois, the Lobby has de facto attempted to limit the institutional space within which Palestinian perspectives can be understood and legitimized.

The political proficiency and resources of the Israel Lobby in Illinois and elsewhere present formidable challenges to pro-Palestinian and BDS activists. Nevertheless, popular support for Israel, including among Jews and on campuses, is at an all-time low. The recent and welcome radicalization of the notion of “occupy,” combined with the principles and goals of the BDS movement, suggests assertive and persistent responses to Lobby business as usual on campus and in state government.

Article courtesy The Palestine Chronicle on-line

Related posts:

1. Hysteria of pro-Israel bias By JAMES ZOGBY When it comes to Israel, politicians in...
2. Media Consensus on Israel Collapsing By Jordan Michael Smith With Hamas and Fatah meeting this...
3. Massad: Either Way, Israel Wins By Joseph Massad What is at stake in Barack...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

By Nick Meyer

Courtesy of Arab American News

The city of Ann Arbor has long been a hotspot for the Boycott Israel movement, and a group of the most fervent Palestinian rights activists continued that tradition Wednesday, protesting a meeting between Starbucks employees and CEO Howard Schultz.

Protestors demonstrated against apartheid outside Cobblestone Farm in Ann Arbor on Wednesday, Sept. 2 during a meeting between Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz and employees. The group believes Schultz contributes large sums of money to support occupation in Israel.

Schultz’s meeting was held at the Cobblestone Farm and Park in Ann Arbor while 13 protestors demonstrated and waved signs with phrases like “Boycott Israel” and “No More Apartheid” to thousands of passing motorists.

“It was important to convey that there is serious concern on the part of people of Ann Arbor about human rights violations in Gaza and Palestine,” said protestor Mozghan Savabieasfahani. “As a general thing we have asked the city to boycott Israel and we protest when people have come to promote more business with Israel, that’s the message we want to get out.”

The protestors, many of whom were Ann Arbor citizens, have taken issue with Schultz and the company because of Schultz’s alleged ties with Israel and Zionism.

 They cited a June 2002 Independent World article by Robert Fisk in which he stated that Schultz was awarded the “Israeli 50th Anniversary Tribute Award” in 1998 from the Jerusalem Fund of Aish Ha-Torah, which is strongly critical of former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and insists that the occupied Palestinian territories should be described only as “disputed.”

Schultz also gave a speech at the height of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s reoccupation of West Bank towns condemning Palestinian “inaction” and announced that “the Palestinians aren’t doing their job – they’re not stopping terrorism” in 2002 according to the article.

The Starbucks corporate office called ongoing boycotts “disheartening” and “based on blatant untruths” in an e-mail statement. The statement also said that Starbucks remains a “non-political organization” and that allegations that the company provides financial support to the Israeli government and/or army are “unequivocally false.” The e-mail also pointed out that Starbucks operates 280 stores in nine countries in the Middle East.

Protestor Susan Hajhassan of Dearborn said that interest was high for the protest.

“I did notice a change in the overall reaction of people that passed by; in past protests we would get a lot of negative reactions, however this time there were more positive then negative which I found interesting,” she said. “We had people stop, just wanting to know what the whole situation was about, which is positive for our cause.”

Ann Arbor citizens have a long history of pushing for anti-Israel product boycotts. In 1984, more than 5,000 signatures were collected and presented to Ann Arbor’s city council in an attempt to place a resolution urging the withholding of U.S. aid to Israel on the city ballot in April but the measure was never voted on. A similar measure was later defeated by a 6-4 vote that year.

Despite those setbacks, protestors continue to believe that their message will be heard and remain undaunted in their efforts.

“For 25 years people have been pushing in Ann Arbor for the council to pass a resolution but the city has just stonewalled the whole issue even up to today,” said Blaine Coleman, a long-time protestor. “We’re demanding it here and we’re hoping that the people can demand a similar boycott of Israeli products in Dearborn as well from their city council.”

Published in The Independent Monitor October 2009 issue.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Courtesy of thepeoplesvoice.org

In the wake of the crisis after a Swedish newspaper revealed the heinous, and criminal activity, of Israel which has been harvesting organs and body parts from murdered Palestinians and selling them on to the USA it seems that Israel is facing another crisis, this time with Norway. The Norwegian Government Pension Fund, which has $400 billion in assets under management, has sold its $5.4 million holding in Israeli defense contractor Elbit Systems Ltd.

The Israeli company Elbit systems Ltd provide a monitoring system which is the key contribution to the construction of the racist wall. The Norwegian finance minister Kristin Halvorsen from the social democrat party the alliance of the labor party in the current government supported earlier wider boycott against the state of Israel due to its apartheid policy. Halvorsen made it clear that Norway will not fund companies, which contribute in violations of international humanitarian law.

It must be mentioned here that the Norwegian Petroleum Fund’s Council on Ethics has concluded that an investment in the Israeli company leads to “unacceptable risk of contributing to the particularly serious violations of fundamental ethical norms”. According to the Norwegian paper Dagbladet the Council on Ethics for the Norwegian Petroleum Fund came with his recommendation in May, and the fund has already sold out of the company.

The Hague Tribunal court in The Hague in 2004 recommended the states that are parties in the Geneva Convention to stand against the wall construction. Norwegian authorities have the same vision and will provide support for this, says the finance minister.

In doing so the Norwegian Petroleum Fund’s Council on Ethics is implementing the recommendation of the International Court in The Hague from 2004 which clearly stated that the construction of security wall along the chosen route is a violation of international law. The Hague court found out that than 90 percent of the wall goes over occupied territory in the West Bank.

The question of boycotting the apartheid state of Israel has been one of the questions raised in various academic and political circles in Europe because Israel has a long history in disrespecting the international law. This question is often linked with the international boycott campaign of the apartheid South Africa which many think it has greatly contributed in the fall of that regime. Therefore many think that imposing sanctions on the state of Israel would weaken the far right and the religious fascism which is in power in Israel.

Sweden’s exposure of what can only be described as the Israeli body-organ harvest industry has crossed all lines of human decency toward occupied Palestinians. Although these revelations has left all decent minded people reeling with disgust there has been very little international reaction to roundly condemn Israel and call for sanctions against them.

Norway is to be applauded for leading the way in taking positive steps to boycott Israel – the unanswered question remains. Will the rest of the European community follow suit? My view is that we forfeit our own humanity if we allow this kind of heinous practice to go unchecked. The EU and the European Human Rights organizations must put this issue on its list of priorities.

Likewise, the Palestinian authority needs to stop all political contacts with the apartheid regime in Israel which has been investing these contacts for its own benefit. In the shadow of farcical, and often theatrical, negotiations between the Israel and the Palestinian authority Israel has constructed the racist wall which has ripped through the landscape destroying rural life, uprooting trees and families and causing immeasurable damage to the ecological system. This has been deliberate vandalism – its aim is to drive people from their land and destroy Palestinian culture.

Israel’s anti occupation activists have themselves concluded that nothing has worked to compel, or even encourage, Israel to stop the occupation.

Neve Gordon, an Israeli intellectual concluded that: ‘It is therefore clear to me that the only way to counter the apartheid trend in Israel is through massive international pressure. The words and condemnations from the Obama administration and the European Union have yielded no results, not even a settlement freeze, let alone a decision to withdraw from the occupied territories.’

It is time that the Europe takes a firm stand. Words need to be wed with deeds because words alone are having no impact. The injustice toward Palestinians not only continues, but as evidenced by the organ harvest scandal, it has plummeted to greater depths of depravity.

Describing Israel as an apartheid state and doing nothing to stop it makes the world an accessory to the crime. Passivity in the face of such atrocities as the organ harvest from murdered Palestinians emboldens the Zionists – who are encouraged to keep moving the goal posts of evil doing.

The Norwegian boycott of Israel has made a bold statement that it will not condone its continued occupation of Palestine and violation of human rights. Other foreign governments, companies, academics, art and entertainment communities as well as faith-based organizations, unions and citizens need to make the same ethical stand against Israel as it did against the former apartheid government of South Africa. Boycotts worked then and they would work now.

Europe must disregard accusations of being called anti-Semitic. This is empty rhetoric and an attempt by the Zionist regime to intimidate and discourage opposition to the criminal behavior of Israel.

A strong, united European stand against the crimes of Israel with an international boycott would send a clear message that the silence of its critics is over. To do nothing would not only encourage Israel to commit more crimes it will intensify the culture of violence and revenge which ripped Europe apart in the first half of the last century. While the Jewish communities around the world tell us ‘never again’ we watch the same atrocities being committed by Israeli’s against Palestinians that the Nazi’s stood accused of at Nuremburg.

 Dr. Salim Nazzal is a Palestinian-Norwegian historian in the Middle East, who has written extensively on social and political issues in the region. E Mail: salim_nazzal@ymail.com

 Published in The Independent Monitor October 2009 issue.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Jane Fonda, Danny Glover and Eve Ensler have joined the growing list of artists who are boycotting the Toronto film festival over a program honoring Tel Aviv’s 100th anniversary, gossip blogger Perez Hilton reported on Friday.

The three have added their names to a letter aimed at festival officials claiming that Tel Aviv was built on violence, ignoring the “suffering of thousands of former residents and descendants,” Hilton reported.

Jane Fonda

Several Israeli films are being screened at the festival’s new City to City event, which this year celebrates Tel Aviv’s centennial.

 Culture critic Naomi Klein and director John Greyson are among those who had already announced their protest over the homage to Tel Aviv.

 Two-time Oscar winner Rabbi Marvin Hier, who founded the Simon Wiesenthal Center, called the boycott “an attack on the heart and soul of Israel.”

“People who support letters like this are people who do not support a two-state solution,” he was quoted as saying on Hilton’s blog.

“By calling into question the legitimacy of Tel Aviv, they are supporting a one-state solution, which means the destruction of the State of Israel. I applaud the organizers of the festival for celebrating on the 100th anniversary of Tel Aviv. If every city in the Middle East would be as culturally diverse, as open to freedom of expression as Tel Aviv is, then peace would long have come to the Middle East.”

Fonda, 72, rose to fame as an actress in the 1960s, but has since become known for her political activism, including her opposition to the Vietnam and Iraq wars.

Glover, who is probably best known for co-starring with Mel Gibson in the four Lethal Weapon movies, has also been politically active since his student days. He made headlines in 2006 when he traveled to Venezuela with a group of celebrities to show solidarity with president Hugo Chavez.

Ensler, whose father is reportedly Jewish, is an American playwright and activist who wrote The Vagina Monologues.

 Published in The Independent Monitor October 2009 issue.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.