This afternoon, a veritable throng gathered outside of the Federal Building on Main Street as part of a protest sponsored by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Palestinian-American Congress, and the Middle East Crisis Committee. It was endorsed by People of Faith CT, American Friends Service Committee, A.N.S.W.E.R. CT and Socialist Action.
The protest follows recent violence in the Gaza Strip. The groups are demanding that Obama voice his views on the recent attacks. CT Bob makes a valid point when he writes:
I don’t necessarily agree that Barack Obama should publicly comment on the volatile situation in Gaza until after he becomes President. We still have a sitting president who should do his goddamned job and speak up about this situation. Anything Obama says right now might be blamed for further escalation of the conflict. I think our current president should be the one to lead us on this.
After all, that’s what he’s supposed to be getting paid for!
I agree that until he is legally out of office, Bush needs to be expected to do his job. At the same time, Obama is laying the groundwork already for his new job position, and with issues this complicated and serious, perhaps it could not hurt to get a headstart.
The situation in this area of the world, however, is a complicated one. Finding objective background information is a task akin to getting out of IKEA without buying bamboo– possible, but unlikely, and it requires being steered through a literal or virtual maze. Sources tend to be pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian, but nowhere in between. One source gives a look at the extent to which the tension/violence/conflict has been prominent in global discussions, yet it is also biased.
There are people who are seeking peace without being neutral. Yehezkel Landau and Yahya Hendi, for instance, write:
There will be no political peace in the Middle East without a spiritual underpinning reconciling Jews and Muslims. At this critical moment in our history, with heartbreaking suffering and loss on all sides, we need to be inspired by the Divine light that shines forth from the holy Qur’an and the holy Torah. They both affirm life, not death. They both teach compassion, not callousness or hatred.
In an article by Fatma Antar and Leslie Brett, published in Common Dreams in 2001, the authors write of a Jews for Peace in the Middle East meeting:
Every person in the room expressed sorrow for and condemnation of the violent acts that had killed innocent civilians on the streets of Jerusalem and Haifa. And every person in the room expressed sorrow for and condemnation of the months and years of occupation and the violent acts by the Israeli government that had led to the deaths of thousands of Palestinians. There was nothing to be gained in trying to keep score. On that night, the lesson could not have been clearer: Violence and retaliation lead to more violence and more retaliation.
Here in Hartford, we know this all too well– “violence and retaliation lead to more violence and retaliation.” This morning, the Courant published an article about the group Mothers United Against Violence, a group that, to my knowledge, only takes action in the form of vigils and marches after murders occur. Praying and holding candlelight vigils is not going to stop the violence, but I think that what this group is doing should be honored. They are publicly condemning violent acts. The response to this article falls into the same category of most responses that one finds on the Topix (or as Julie puts it, Toxic) boards which follow the newspaper’s online content. These women are judged. The assumption is that they raised up their children wrong, don’t care for their property, and deserve this.
I think the mindset regarding Middle East conflicts is much the same. It is assumed that the Israeli people or the Palestinian people, depending on who you side with, deserve this. They should not have thrown rocks, believed something, been born there, wanted sovereignty, wanted a haven, etc. I think that oversimplifying the issues is dangerous. Is it wrong to defend your homeland? Is it wrong to defend what is the homeland of your ancestors? When does self-defense cross a line and become offense? Is it wrong to want to live in a place where your ethnic group is not the minority? Does living in such a place guarantee that antisemitism will vanish?
These are not questions being posed publicly by those at such protests as the one today. What the organizations gathered this afternoon demanded was the following:
* Call on President-elect Obama to break his silence and condemn this human rights atrocity!
* Call for an end to all US economic and military aid to Israel until it respects Palestinian human rights.
* Call for a just peace in Palestine based in part on:
Israel’s full withdrawal from land seized in 1967;
The right of return of Palestinian refugees;
An end to the segregation and second class status of Palestinians who are Israeli citizens.
I asked Frank O’Gorman of People of Faith CT to explain why this protest was staged outside of the Federal Building. He replied:
As you know, the Israeli occupation of Palestine is funded and equipped by the U.S. government. Without U.S. government financial, military and propaganda support, it would be virtually impossible to maintain. […] Choosing the U.S. buildings in New Haven and Hartford was designed to draw attention to these connections.
The protest seemed at times to shift from demanding an end to violence, to being pro-Palestinian. I asked O’Gorman if People of Faith were taking an official stance. He says:
People of Faith condemns all violence as an affront to human dignity and the Creator. While there is no qualitative difference between being killed by the Israeli government or being killed by Hamas, there is a vast quantitative difference. Hamas kills one Israeli, and Israel responds by killing 400 Palestinians and wounding hundreds more! Furthermore the violence of Hamas is in response to the original violence of Israeli oppression and occupation. It is a moral imperative to side with the oppressed. Even as one condemns violent resistance to occupation.
This returns a bit to the questions that I want answers for, which I cannot answer. How far back do we trace oppression? Does the oppressed ever become the oppressor? Is that even possible?
The stance of the national U.S. media is clear. They, along with President Bush, are placing the full blame on Hamas for this latest burst of violence. Can it be that simple? I asked O’Gorman what he thought about this idea that Israel is acting purely in self defense.
He described the situation in this way:
An elephant has his foot on the throat of a mouse and the mouse scratches back, desperately trying to free itself. It would be hypocritical for the elephant to declare that it must now “become” violent towards the mouse in order to defend itself. Peace and security will come to the elephant simply by removing its foot from the mouse.
I received an email from Amnesty International that states “Since December 27, these horrific attacks on Gaza have caused over 400 Palestinian deaths and 2000 injuries. Rocket fire by armed Palestinian groups, including Hamas, has taken the lives of 4 Israelis and caused several dozen injuries. Amnesty International condemns the violence on both sides and calls on both parties to abide by international law and policies.”
Like in Gaza, Hartford’s new year has had a rocky beginning in terms of violent crime. Here is to hoping that the rest of 2009 be more peaceful, at home and abroad.
All photos taken today, by myself, at and around 450 Main Street.
