CAN needs to expand focus to all wars

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?"

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...

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.

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!