CAN needs to expand focus to all wars

Letter to the Editor

Published: Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Updated: Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Dear Editor,

Around the country and on our very own campus, the Campus Anti-War Network misleads students who wish to become peace activists. These students, I truly believe, join CAN with an honest and sincere belief that they can help end global war through activism. Unfortunately, as beautiful as the group name sounds, CAN seeks to demonize Israel rather than end all wars.

The group was formed in 2003 in response to the planned U.S. occupation of Iraq, but since then, both nationally and on our campus, CAN has focused much of its efforts in presenting the Israel/Palestine issue as a black-and-white situation. Once one analyzes CAN’s history and their leaders’ public statements, one can clearly observe the hate toward the Jewish state.

Let us take a look at the evolution of CAN’s Points of Unity, the group’s constitution. At the first CAN conference, delegates agreed on four points: “No war on Iraq, whether backed by the U.S. or the United Nations; end the U.N. sanctions which have killed more than 1 million Iraqis; oppose the attacks on civil liberties and racist scapegoating at home; money for jobs, education, and health care, not war.”

Just nine months later at CAN’s second national convention, a few changes were made to the Points of Unity. All of the alterations involved specifying CAN’s beliefs toward the United States involvement in Iraq, except for two additions: “We stand opposed to all U.S. wars of aggression,” and “We stand opposed to the oppression of the Palestinian people and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.”

It is understandable that CAN is concerned about the situation in the Israel/Palestine region as it is frequently a war zone. But if the Campus Anti-War Network is going to broaden their focus to international war zones outside of United States direct involvement, why does CAN exclusively add the Israel/Palestine region? Why did CAN not add a point condemning the activity in Darfur where thousands of innocent civilians are murdered every year or a specific point on any of the other wars that were going on in 2003 around the globe?

At the 2007 national convention, CAN revised the Points of Unity to the following statement: “The Campus Anti-War Network stands for the immediate withdrawal from Iraq of all occupation troops and private contractors. CAN is committed to building a movement based on grassroots, democratic and independent organizing that actively opposes all forms of racism, Islamophobia, sexism and homophobia.”

This is a very unusual statement. Why is Muslim discrimination, Islamophobia, the only religious persecution CAN specifically condemns? Is anti-Christian or anti-Semitic behavior not prevalent enough to mention? Or is it just more acceptable?

The opposition to sexism and homophobia is also fascinating in relation to CAN’s negative view towards Israel. Israel is one of the only nations in the Middle East where homosexuality is permitted – homosexuality is punishable by death in Iran, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and four other nations – and Israel is the only nation in the region to have had a woman run it. So why does CAN’s latest mission statement target Iraq
and Islamophobia?

I would love for the Campus Ant-War Network to be an all-inclusive anti-war activist group, but I cannot help but be skeptical. As a Jew and one who feels a strong connection to the Jewish homeland, I greatly fear the power of anti-Israel sentiments.

When the leaders of CAN publicly use language such as the “Zionist breeders,” I cannot help but compare this to the anti-Semitic rhetoric used by the Nazis.

I am not asking for members of CAN to agree with every Israeli policy, but it would be somewhat reassuring if they did not legitimize suicide bombers and missile launches on innocent Israeli civilians.

This issue is not black and white. There are mistakes on both sides. I just hope that the members of CAN start to listen to outside opinions before labeling them as nonsense.

Jonathan Dress
UC student
Architecture 2011

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

joel bitar

Tue Nov 24 2009 03:10

My comment was in response to this question: "It is understandable that CAN is concerned about the situation in the Israel/Palestine region as it is frequently a war zone. But if the Campus Anti-War Network is going to broaden their focus to international war zones outside of United States direct involvement, why does CAN exclusively add the Israel/Palestine region?"

joel bitar

Tue Nov 24 2009 00:49

Simple. American citizens have a right to single out Israel as long as it is receiving 3 billion dollars per year in military and economic aid. 75% percent of the 3 billion dollars is direct military aid and is spent to purchase U.S. weapons, vehicles and equipment. The White Phosphorous that was dropped indiscriminately on Gazan civilians in Al-Quds Hospital, an UNRWA school and UNRWA headquarters (incinerating tons of humanitarian supplies) was manufactured in the United States. As long as American citizens are PAYING for the destruction of innocent life in Palestine then we absolutely have a right to single out Israel for criticism.

The United States constantly vetoes UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions that criticize the Israeli occupation. These measures are preventing a peaceful settlement of the conflict based on International Law. As Paul mentioned, Israel is violation of Article 2 of the UN charter that states the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by force. Therefore, all the settlements Israel has constructed past the June-1967 border are in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel also has a large military presence in the territories that are meant to be the future Palestinian state. This is the reason that the International Court of Justice and mainstream human rights organizations refer to the West Bank and Gaza Strip as Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Palestinian terrorism can be explained without being justified. It is the direct result of Israel's belligerent occupation of Palestinian territory in the West Bank and Israel's occupation of the Gaza Strip. When Israel addresses the grievances of the Palestinian people and respects International Law in whole, the conflict will be resolved.

"This issue is not black and white. There are mistakes on both sides. I just hope that the members of CAN start to listen to outside opinions before labeling them as nonsense."

Actually, under International Law, this issue is black and white. Israel has been occupying Palestinian territory illegally since 1967. The law is crystal clear that Israel is in the wrong. Trying to make this conflict look like one between two equally powerful sides is also faulty. Israel has the 4th largest military in the world with an arsenal of over 200 nuclear weapons and every advanced piece of military equipment known to man. Palestine is being occupied by a major military power and has had its land continuously settled upon since becoming occupied. It is possible that both sides could be equal in an episode of the twilight zone but reality tells us the complete opposite. There is an oppressor and an oppressed. Plain and simple.

Paul Erb

Mon Nov 23 2009 00:58

Jonathan,1). Try harder not to put words in our mouths. No one has said that Palestinians do not have any other choice but terrorism (except you when you misquoted us). Acknowledging that they have limited option or that most of the indexes for Gaza are comparable to Sub-Saharan Africa because of the occupation is helpful in understanding how people arrive at their decisions, but it does not have the determinist connotation you accuse us of giving it. They have other choices and targeting and killing civilians is an abhorrent choice. There is no disagreement on this issue.2). Your choice of quotations for the term occupation is emblematic of much of our disagreement. I agree that international law should be the framework for finding peace. You ignore it when it is convenient. On the topic of the occupation it is clear that the acquisition of land by force is inadmissible. The wording comes from the preamble to UN Security Council Resolution 242 which was passed unanimously after Israel invaded its neighboring countries and called for an Israeli withdrawal. Security Council Resolutions are binding under international law and the continued occupation of the West Bank is why Israel has been in direct violation of international law since 1967. Perhaps a serious argument could be given for the occupation—I do not see why that would be a theoretical impossibility—but it is clearly and unambiguously an occupation.3). I have always made concerted efforts to emphasize that my critiques are against the policies of countries and not their people. Societies, religions, ethnic identities, groups of people are complex. They are certainly not monolithic and do not deserve to be treated as such. The case of Israeli society is a good example. In my presentation I emphasized how the use of the term apartheid is used in reputable newspapers in Israel and by important people like the former mayor of Jerusalem Meron Benvenisti to describe Israel’s policies in the West Bank. Maybe the term is appropriate, maybe it isn’t, but its use in Israeli society represents a good example of a) Israelis do not agree on everything and b) Not every Israeli agrees with the policies of his state. We tend to cringe at broad-sweeping generalizations. With the exception of the regrettable use of “Zionist breeders”—which I should add we all find distasteful and unacceptable—I have no idea what it is about our language that is at all similar to Nazis. That is a question. Please provide more examples if you are serious because we both agree it would be a problem. However, we have no interest in curbing our critiques of US/Israeli policies that we find deplorable. 4). Your understanding of the Six-Day War refuses to be reconciled with any evidence to the contrary. In my presentation I described the Israeli invasion of its neighboring countries as a land grab. Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong, but I made a coherent argument while you were in the audience listening (I presumed—now wrongly, I think). I ran through a “who’s who” of quotes that arrive at the exact opposite conclusion from yours concerning the 1967 war. Mossad chief Meir Amit: “Egypt was not ready for a war; and Nassar does not want a war,” (Brecher, Michael, Decisions in Crisis pg. 104).Begin: “We had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nassar was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him,” (Excerpts from Speech at National Defense College,” NYT, 21.08.1982).Begin: IDF had “no doubts of victory” expressing his “belief not only in the strength of the army but also in its ability to route the enemy.” Israel didn’t even make “contingency plans for a prolonged conflict or much less likely an Israeli defeat” (undersecretary of state Nicholas deBelleville Katzenbach), (Ball, George W, The Passionate Attachment pg. 55).CIA: Whoever strikes the first blow, Israel will win within a week. “Israel will prevail in any conflict with any combination of Arab enemies.” The context is Israeli officials meeting with US intelligence. Israeli officials admit that Israeli society was not in danger and were making documents to the contrary for “American consumptions,” (Neff, Donald, Warriors for Jerusalem pg. 140, 161).Mcnamara: Israel will win “beyond the shadow of a doubt” the only question was if it would take seven or ten days. This is the conclusion of the CIA, President Johnson, and the British Prime Minister Harold Wilson, (Mcnamara, Robert S, In Retrospect pg. 278).Gen. Matitiahu Peled: Since 1949 Israel has not been in any real danger. Looking back at ’67 war (he is considered an architect of the Israeli victory) he stated that “no one was able to threaten the very existence of Israel,” (Hirst, David, The Gun and the Olive Branch pg. 210).“Defensively captured” is not a responsible use of words to describe Israel’s posture in June 1967. Claiming that the surrounding Arab...

Paul Erb

Sun Nov 22 2009 14:35

Israel abided by international law and returned land they illegally invaded and occupied when they returned the Sinai in ’78. It is also important to remember that they refused to give it back until after Sadat made explicit that he would attack if they didn’t and then finally did in ’73 after being dismissed for some time in favor of a “stalemate.” That fact that someone returns 90% of something they stole is not really that commendable.

The Camp David 2000 peace talks and the subsequent meetings in Taba were such a joke that even PM Barak’s Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami subsequently said: “Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David as well,” (http://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/14/fmr_israeli_foreign_minister_if_i).

If you are serious about debating the issue go read some books and critique my sources and argument. Yours has a lot of wholes in it. Please respond with citations. Also, please stop maligning CAN.

Jonathan Dress

Thu Nov 19 2009 17:28

Unfortunately, I feel The News Record has misrepresented me. Much of what I wrote was skewed, deleted, or completely changed. For example, I did not write, “So why does CAN’s latest mission statement target Iraq  and Islamophobia,” nor do I fully understand its meaning.

I agree that CAN members express that they do not legitimize the murder of innocent civilians. It is my personal opinion, however, that when a CAN member explains that the Palestinian terrorist attacks are caused by the "occupation" and state that they do not have any other choice, this is the legitimization. They do have a choice, NOT to kill innocent civilians.

I am not claiming that CAN's members act as Nazi's, but that their language towards Israel, Israelis, and Zionist (people who believe in a Jewish state in the land of Israel) is very similar to that of the greatest anti-Semites in the world.

As for “one side is objectively gaining more land as the other side is losing it,” this is just not true. When the surrounding Arab countries initiated the Six-Day War by blocking the Israeli ports and other aggressive tactics, Israel defensively captured the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank. After Egypt, to the great dismay of the Arab countries, recognized Israel as a legitimate state, promising not to wage war, the two nations signed a peace treaty and Israel handed back the Sinai Peninsula. Just four years ago, Israel forced all of its Jewish residents out of the Gaza Strip, a request of the Palestinian leadership, with the hope that this would lead to a peace deal. Unfortunately, Hamas violently threw out the Fatah representatives and continues to incite aggression towards Israel. Since the Six-Day War, Israel has returned over ninety-percent of the land won from a war Israel did not start. When the Palestinian government decides to fully recognize Israel and denounce terrorism, I am sure Israel will completely hand over the West Bank to the Palestinians, as they were offered and rejected in 1937, 1947, and 2000.

Kyle Galindez

Thu Nov 19 2009 13:56

I believe CAN expands its focus to including the Israel/Palestine conflict because it one in which the United States is very directly involved. Certainly, Israel is only able to exist because our tax dollars prop it up (and its military especially.) CAN is only one organization, and not even a very big one at that: it cannot possibly organize against all acts of aggression across the entire globe; it is ridiculous to even think so.

Discrimination against Muslims is explicitly mentioned because Islamophobia is so pervasive in American society. Do you have any idea how many times the term "Islamofacism" was mentioned during the Republican presidential debates? Also, I do not have updated numbers, but the number of Anti-Muslim hate crimes in America numbered over 500 by 2005. This is clearly a problem and we seek to address it.

Your intellectual dishonesty is glaring here. The fact that we do not explicitly oppose other forms of discrimination does NOT imply that we support or ignore them; your argument is fallacious. We merely seek to address the observed dominant social problems in contemporary American society. Although, it is important to note that CAN "actively opposes all forms of racism."

It is understandable for you to feel a strong connection to Israel because of your religion, but you have to understand that CAN's work is NOT opposed to Judaism: it is opposed to the actions of the state of Israel. This is a political dispute, and Israel has done some objectively terrible things to the Palestinian people in order to expand their control over the region (displacing thousands of people, bombing them, cutting off water supply, blockading aid, building huge walls to separate Palestinian neighborhoods, demolishing entire Palestinian homes, etc.) These are acts done not on behalf of Judaism but in the name of the political entity Israel, and it is these actions that CAN opposes.

Nobody in CAN legitimizes suicide bombers or missile launches against Israel; it is actually pretty offending that you would say so, and a complete and utter lie; again, this exposes your dishonesty.

Also, please do not compare CAN to Nazi's. This is completely ridiculous, unwarranted, and you simply have no evidence to support this claim. Israel was not even declared a state until after the time of the Nazis!

Obviously, the issue is not black and white. However, one side is objectively gaining more land as the other side is losing it. I think it is fairly clear and logically-explained who the aggressor is in this case.

News_Record,Fireballlax088@yahoo.com

Thu Nov 19 2009 04:54

I am so happy that finally some one has the guts to stand up to these horrible people. CAN claims that they want peace but everything I hear that comes out of their mouths is hateful propaganda, all they do is portray themselves as racist bigots!

You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now