|
by Herschel Soles
Multnomah County Democrats, at their monthly meeting on February 12, considered two resolutions concerning the recent military assault on the people of Gaza by the Israeli military.
Peter Miller of Americans United for Palestinian Human Rights (www.auphr.com) introduced the first resolution calling for an immediate cease fire without preconditions, with an end to the attack of civilians by both Hamas and the Israel Defense Force (IDF).
This resolution also spelled out the criminality of and hardship created by the 18-month siege imposed on Gaza, which has been preventing adequate water, fuel, food, and medicines from reaching the Gazan people.
The document expressed concern about the collective punishment of innocent civilians (with the deaths of 1,300 Palestinians, many women and children), with a call for the American government to investigate possible Israeli violations of the U.S. Arms Export Control Act.
As on past occasions, a Zionist-influenced group within the Democratic Party objected to this strongly-worded resolution. As a consequence, a second watered-down resolution was introduced.
This second resolution acknowledged the existence of human suffering in the Middle East, the sympathy Democrats have for those suffering, and the hope for “lasting and humane peace” with “sovereignty and economic justice for all.”
Omitted from the second resolution was any mention of the nature of Israel’s occupation of Gaza (such as closing the Gazan border, depriving the Palestinians of key essentials, or the war crimes being committed against civilians). Thus the alternate proposal left out the reality that Israel is a significant regional military power, while Gaza has no army or air force to defend itself.
In the final outcome, the second resolution supplanted the first by a two thirds vote on the floor. In a separate voice vote, this weaker resolution was passed.
During the debate, the main critique against the original and more detailed resolution was that it was inflammatory and divisive and that its passage would be a blow to the unity of the party. Party unity was utilized as a censoring instrument to prevent taking a stand against the injustice being committed against the Palestinians.
There were a good number of folks within the party supportive of stronger language and supportive of a full debate of the issues, but they were not numerous enough to forestall the vote by the “pro-unity” coalition which consisted of some of the Party vanguard whose primary concern is the smooth functioning of the organization, and the Democratic Zionists who took on the cloak of “unity” to dissuade others from challenging our one-sided US support for Israel.
Speaking of unity, of course, Democrats might consider why many leftists consider themselves disenfranchised from the Democratic Party. It is because important political debate about difficult issues has been pushed out of the party. The internal functioning of the party seems to be more about smooth operation of a fund-raising and vote-getting machine to elect politicians.
No matter which resolution was passed, the fact that there was not unanimity in taking a position against racism — or what has been called “ethnic cleansing” by a number of experts — indicates that a great deal of enlightenment is needed.
Useful websites to consider:
n www.imemc.org/
n www.electronicintifada.org/
n www.occupation101.com.
Authors of importance:
n Noam Chomsky
n Phyllis Bennis
n Norman Finkelstein.
Herschel Soles is active in the Portland Peaceful Response Coalition (www.pprc-news.org), and is a disenchanted follower of Democratic Party politics.
|
