Comments on: Congress Denounces Goldstone, Baird Courageously Dissents

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 07:00:58 +0000

I haven’t read the resolution but I understand there had been an attempt to come up w. compromise language that would allow some of the European states to sign. But that attempt failed and a fairly harsh resolution resulted.

But I note that the resolution DOES call for the Palestinians to set up their own independent investigation of their own violations of international law.

By: Arie Brand

Arie Brand — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 06:27:48 +0000

This is how the vote on the issue in the UN General Assembly turned out:

The draft resolution on follow-up to the Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (document A/64/L.11) was adopted by a recorded vote of 114 in favour to 18 against, with 44 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Netherlands, Palau, Panama, Poland, Slovakia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United States.

Abstain: Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Iceland, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Montenegro, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Tonga, Uganda, United Kingdom, Uruguay.

Absent: Bhutan, Cape Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Honduras, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Togo, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

It is a matter of embarrassment for “the West” that so few of its representatives voted in favor of this resolution. On the other hand “Europe” largely abstained with Germany, Poland, Holland and Italy as notable exceptions. And let us also be grateful that the country where the Geneva Conventions were signed voted in favor.

* *** *

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:14:05 +0000

Brian Baird didn’t need to be transformed or change his position. He represents a liberal district & his views have been sympathetic from the beginning. J St. had nothing to do w. Baird’s opposition to HR 867. But J St. serves an extremely important role in encouraging those who are already supportive of a progressive viewpt. in Congress to continue their support; and it encourages those who are on the fence to move over to the progressive side on these issues. Members need cover & lobby groups can provide that if that helps them. Had there been no J St. HR 867 likely would have had only 10 No votes or less.

I resent the implication that J St. is bribing anyone. Unlike Aipac, J St. actually espouses a progressive line & its views represent a pragmatic U.S. policy. You may think politics in this country are based on the principle that people always vote the right way for purely altruistic reasons, but that’s not the way most of the rest of us understand our politics.

By: Mary

Mary — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:10:15 +0000

I also sent follow-up emails today to my Congressional representatives expressing my disgust at their cowardice, and I assured them that I would not be voting for their re-election. I know it doesn’t sound like much, but imagine the impact if everyone did this. It is also important to write to magazines and newspapers asking them to publish more articles describing the Palestinian side of the question. And in a time where they’re all steadily losing money, don’t be afraid to tell them you’ll stop reading their publication unless they give a more balanced perspective.

It’s a start, and it’s something.

By: Rod Such

Rod Such — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:16:33 +0000

That Brian Baird joined 35 other members of Congress in voting against the resolution is evidence to me of why we don’t really need a J Street lobby. Quite apart from whether J Street will actually make a contribution to peace and human rights when you consider its stand, or lack thereof, on the Goldstone report and its apparent pro-Kadima orientation, the whole idea that we need a counterlobby to AIPAC takes us in the wrong direction.

Baird is a good example of why a counterlobby focused on campaign contributions is not needed. Baird’s district includes Olympia, where Rachel Corrie lived. Much to his credit, Baird has been willing to listen to his constituents and open his mind to the Palestinian struggle. Undoubtedly, the Rachel Corrie Foundation and the Rachel Corrie chapter of Veterans for Peace have played a role in Baird’s transformation. Visiting Gaza clearly had a huge impact on him. In other words he changed his position because some of his constituents helped educate him and because he showed enough concern to actually do some investigation, not because a counterlobby was willing to give him a lot of money.

The idea that we need to play the lobbying game and bribe our members of Congress is both unsustainable (since ordinary people will never have the money of the corporations or the wealthy) and repugnant. What we need to do is build a progressive movement that helps elect representatives who themselves understand the necessity for a foreign policy based on human rights and against hegemony, who understand we will never achieve any of the domestic reforms so badly needed, like universal health care, as long as we’re spending trillions to support an empire abroad, an empire that allies with human rights abusers and militaristic states like Israel. Until we build that kind of movement, Congress will remain a bedrock of reaction in the grip of moneyed interests.

By: Mary

Mary — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:02:57 +0000

Congress stopped caring how it appeared to the people a long, long time ago. Remember “impeachment is off the table”? The important thing is not to let this issue die and to push for more, and more fair, coverage of the Israel-Palestine matter in the press. I feel a large part of why this resolution passed is because the American people didn’t care enough about it to stop it. For them, it involves a place they’ve never been, won’t visit, and probably don’t even know where it is, and they don’t understand how crucial the whole thing is to our standing in the world and our security. The news coverage here has always been so pro-Israel as to stifle any healthy debate, and this results in Aipac being able to effectively work its will.

By: ellen

ellen — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:08:25 +0000

Thanks for this, I had missed it.
He is inspiring.

By: Arie Brand

Arie Brand — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:01:10 +0000

Graag gedaan, Elisabeth.