What does it take to break a “crime of silence”? That was the stated purpose for Bertrand Russell’s original 1966 International War Crimes Tribunal on the Vietnam War, just as it was for last weekend’s New York session of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine. Though some activists see such public reviews as overly mired in legalese, this kind of tribunal — like similar past efforts relating to seemingly intractable scenarios such as apartheid in South Africa and colonialism in Puerto Rico — provides a unique opportunity to bolster broad, grassroots coalitions. Understanding the potential of these efforts is vital in order to break the very real silence around Palestine, both among activists and in society as a whole.
The Russell Tribunal on Palestine is a five-part, multifaceted examination of the role of global power-brokers in maintaining injustice in the region. This has included a 2010 session in Barcelona on the role of the European Union in supporting the growth of Israeli settlements, another in London on the complicity of international corporations, a Cape Town session on the appropriateness of using the term “apartheid” to describe Israeli policy, and the most recent New York event that opened at Cooper Union’s Great Hall, focused on the role of the United States and the responsibility of the United Nations.
Any assessment of the effectiveness of forums such as these must begin by recognizing the connections between international human rights law and the building of grassroots resistance movements. While the tribunal should not be expected, for instance, to be a motor force or political backdrop behind mass mobilizations, it can help broaden organizing work. My own involvement with the Puerto Rican independence movement throughout the 1990s helped show me how.
Although it was door-to-door organizing on the island and in Europe and North America that enabled the unlikely freeing of 11 Puerto Rican political prisoners, and it was waves of nonviolent occupation and civil disobedience campaigns that ended the U.S. Navy presence on Vieques, these campaigns were consistently reviewed by and grounded in a series of tribunals which set the international legal framework for our anti-colonial work. Through them, anti-imperialist ideas spread in Puerto Rico — including into partisan politics — and throughout mainstream “progressive” society. This was in large part because we laid the basis for our work on widely accepted human rights norms.
It’s also important to notice that the list of organizers and participants in the Russell Tribunal represent a model cross-section of the type of broad coalition we need to gather in solidarity with Palestine. Under the leadership of Belgian Socialist Party member Pierre Galand, the tribunal has put Nobel Peace Prize recipient Mairead Corrigan Maguire, a pacifist from Northern Ireland, together with black liberation movement icon Angela Davis and former Congressional Black Caucus leader Cynthia McKinney, now a representative of the Green Party. Poet Alice Walker was a juror along with French diplomat and World War II resistance fighter Stephane Hessel, noted for his role in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. American Indian Movement founder Dennis Banks sat as a juror next to Roger Waters, founder of the band Pink Floyd, who in turn was joined by South African military commander Ronnie Kasrils, Argentine pianist Miguel Angel Estrella, U.N. international law expert John Dugard, and Michael Mansfield, who heads Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers.
The makeup of the tribunal represents an outline of the kinds of players we can and must bring together: pro-democracy activists, socialists, communists, anarchists and liberals, nonviolent activists and those who believe that armed struggle is sometimes necessary — a multi-generational, multi-ethnic polyglot with a wide range of skills and constituencies across civil society.
The tribunal’s New York proceedings, contrary to popular belief, did not end at Cooper Union on October 7 but continued for almost another full day at the United Nations. In presenting a draft of their findings, the jurors not only strongly condemned ongoing Israeli atrocities as constituting war crimes and crimes against humanity (including apartheid and genocide), but also criticized the lack of action on the part of the United Nations itself. The U.N.’s failure to rectify the situation of occupation and oppression after decades of formal review, noted the verdict, “is acute due to their exceptional gravity under international law.”
This is not, as Abraham Greenhouse suggested at The Electronic Intifada, an exercise in “futility,” a schizophrenic appeal to the U.N. to self-correct its own broken system. It is rather a call for independent and militant initiatives to target the U.N. — along with Israel, the U.S., the EU and corporate actors — as one more party responsible for maintaining an unacceptable status quo. At the October 8 meeting of the U.N. Special Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, Palestinian Permanent Observer/Ambassador Riyad Mansour vividly outlined escalating settler violence, confiscation of land and other ongoing abuses. A “new dynamic,” he said, is needed to push toward a just peace, and pressuring the U.N. could make a big difference in the coming year.
The nature of militant action was a subject of ongoing discussion at the tribunal, especially on the second day of hearings. Nonviolent direct action was cited as significant in the presentations made by peace researcher Johan Galtung and David Wildman, the executive secretary for human rights and racial justice of the United Methodist Church’s General Board of Global Ministries. The parents of U.S. solidarity activist Rachel Corrie, who was killed by an Israeli bulldozer in the Gaza Strip, spoke of the plight of unarmed internationals killed by Israeli military forces.
Though it is not the job of a tribunal to posit strategies and tactics for people’s movements, it was clear that consensus existed about the need for escalating boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaigns. In this regard, examining parallels to the South African experience of dismantling legal apartheid is crucial; there is much to be learned from the successes of building an international movement against apartheid — which included simultaneous and parallel BDS efforts outside of South Africa, constructive base-building inside the country, and nonviolent civil disobedience campaigns on all levels, even as international diplomacy and negotiations were being pursued as well.
Although activists had already been convinced of the evils of South African apartheid, forums much like the Russell Tribunal helped strengthen their work and increased the isolation of the racist regime. At a time when the African National Congress and Nelson Mandela were still considered terrorists by many in the liberal establishment, the mandates of mildly independent tribunals helped embolden local activists to push for greater work within community centers, places of worship, the workplace and schools. Today, South Africans themselves — led by Archbishop Desmond Tutu — are making the links between their own history and contemporary Israel.
The combination of increasingly difficult economic conditions in the Palestinian territories and the breakdown of the formal peace process at a time when informal, popular campaigns appear on the rise make this moment particularly crucial for formulating thoughtful, coordinated efforts. “There is an opening here,” Mairead Corrigan Maguire told me at the tribunal, “opportunities for increased work and pressure.”
Israel kills Qaeda-tied leader of Gaza militant group
When Gaza harbors terrorists. They lose the moral high ground, if such a thing exists. Which after 2,000 years of religious warfare, no one owns – this violence isn’t about social justice or territory. Its about who’s god is the better god. A no-win situation for the planet and a fight that will continue until we forsake religion and faith – the true wedge to humanity.
But you can support Hamas if you wish. The reality is the political left will continue to serve the wrong side of secular history.
http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-air-strike-kills-one-palestinian-gaza-192831720.html
Continued best wishes for the site. My humble opinion is you focus on that other Occupy movement, not the in the middle-east.
I think this passage should give us pause before we’re too quick to use the label “terrorist” to avoid the question of whether there might be some justice to the cause:
That said, during my recent visit to Palestine many activists there expressed very clearly their belief that nonviolent forms of resistance, which are very prevalent, are the best way to work toward a solution that will end the occupation that colonizes both Israelis and Palestinians. Gaza in particular, however, appears to be a place where Israel is fostering a situation that will create more terrorists than Palestinians ever could on their own, sadly.
I agree that the “whose G-d is a better G-d” construct is a no-win for the planet, that WNV needs to focus a lot of attention on the OW movements, and even that there is importance in at least attempting a “moral high ground” that includes respect for all life. In addition, there is nothing in this piece which suggests support for Hamas, other than a general thread through all of my writings (and much of WNV) which supports self determination for all people.
That said, I do believe that modern-day, colonial-style occupations do exist, and that Israel’s modern-day relationship to the Palestinian people is comparable to the South Africa white minority population’s relationship to the Blacks during apartheid days. We may not be able to quickly resolve all roots of conflict throughout human history, but bringing justice to situations exacerbated by imperial design over the past century has got to be one place to start.
Gentlemen,
Thank you for responding. Let me first state that I take no side in this religious war between the many factions involved in this land-based battle for “ownership”. I also know that leftist Christian groups which WNV is allied, such as Christian Peace Makers, does endorse many of its writers who have participated in these “fact finding missions” and related articles on this site.
So the Christian left bias is real and should be noted. Idealistic gravity pulls you all together, which is fine. That is your right and I’d fight for you to keep as we live in a secular constitution-based democracy.
The systemic religious violence in the middle-east has its antecedence in the faith and biblical teachings of each group claiming biblical/historical reasons for ownership of the land. This includes Christian activists – so all three groups, who historically have each been very violent at times do maintain alliances within sub-groups, this will continue as the behaviors and activities which promote separateness under the guise of self-determination will continue.
I’d argue that it is in the DNA of faith-based activism for violence, and even activists for “peace” who will help continue the wars. But it’s hard to see this when you’re the fish in the fish bowl.
Is the violence real? Yes. Are all sides opposed to each other in an intractable situation? Yes. Could non-violence end these religious wars fought for thousands of years? No.
For instance, if this site was truly is anti-colonialist, why aren’t there as many articles about Cyprus and the struggles between the Turks and the Greeks? Answer, it isn’t on the world stage or in the minds of the populous, frankly it’s just not as “sexy.” Thus there are no flotillas to Cyprus, etc – religious social activists wish instead to deal with what they deem a bigger problem, especially when it’s the “other” – but ironically its one that won’t ever be solved. That is unless and until religious faith is removed and more humanistic values are accepted– a truly non-violent way to act and be in this world.
Oh, and in terms of defining “terrorist” vs. “freedom fighter” – On the macro level, I’d say those who planned, executed and the brought down the Towers were religiously motivated to take political action in a military strike based on the teachings of their more radical faith. So yes, they are terrorists. Just like on the micro-level the attempted murder a female child for writing a blog of about of all things wanting to get an education is a terrorist act. Imagine, assassinated (shot in the head) for wanting to go to school?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/10/14/pakistan-taliban-shot-girl/1632323/
So if war and violence are bad, then it has to be bad for everyone. Not just those who you myopically ally with in this ongoing war for territory based on biblical interpretations.
Regards and lastly, if it tastes better cooked in bacon grease, then let’s all eat bacon!
An interesting line of argument, Daniel, though I’m not sure how much water it holds. I think it’s a very fair point that there are many conflicts around the world that WNV does not adequately cover. But I think the reasoning for our concern for the Israel-Palestine conflict, as a U.S.-based organization, has much more to do with the fact that the U.S. government and U.S. citizens (yes, often for religious reasons, but hardly those alone) play such an important, massive role in financing and militarizing the conflict.
Your implication that the definition of terrorism has to do with religious motivation is an idiosyncratic one to be sure. It happens that right now, for instance, I’m reading Malraux’s Man’s Fate, in which the pre-WWII translation consistently refers to a Chinese Communist assassin and suicide bomber as a “terrorist.” There are countless examples of non-religious terrorism, from Anders Breivik’s recent rampage against youth in Norway, to the Weather Underground in the U.S., to the Maoist Shining Path in Peru, and many more. The Palestinian cause has also had its share of non-religious actors using terrorist tactics, such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. As far as state-sponsored terror, in the 20th century secularist regimes like the Soviet Union and the Khmer Rouge surely take the cake, along with various forms of right-wing fascism that used alliances with religious institutions to pursue very secular agendas. This blurry line between secular and religious terror also calls to mind reactionary vigilante groups like the Klu Klux Klan — and Breivik as well, actually, for he refers to his “Christian” identity in a far more ethnic than spiritual fashion.
As far as the accusation that WNV has a crypto-religious agenda. It’s true that some of our staff are religious (of which I am one), though others are not. Some of our writers are religious, and others are not. Not once do I remember the question of religious agendas becoming a dividing line in an internal editorial dispute, for instance. Whether we are religious or not, I think we do all agree that religion is one important cultural factor among many others influencing world events and must be considered in a sober, nuanced, informed manner.
Dear Nathan and Readers,
I was drawn to this particular post in so much as it brought to my attention the famed atheist Bertrand Russell. If you have not read his, “Why I’m not a Christian” I suggest you read the man’s actual writings. He rejected religious faith and saw all religions as made-made self delusion – to be rejected and not lauded. Here’s a link some may enjoy:
http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
He was truly a man of humanistic brilliance and someone who saw the folly of man in the context of religious ideology and dogma, my key argument which is fundamental to the past, current and future political and social morass of the land areas known as Israel/Palestine.
In addition, if you are unfamiliar with Russell’s Teapot analogy as to the stunningly ridiculous notion of the god concept and why it is up to the believer to prove the existence of god, rather than the unbeliever to disprove such a notion, I provide it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
As to Nathan’s assertion that the Communists killed millions because they were atheists, that is flatly a rejection of reality and one that is made by the faithful in their attempt to deflect the historical and current intrusion of faith in the body politic and the real violence and social injustice religion creates. Of which there are literally millions of examples – Read Dawkins, Hitchens, Stenger and Harris (for starters), or open a newspaper, if you want to know more.
It wasn’t because communist leaders were atheists that they killed millions, it was because they were in fact Communists. Communism, when practiced, always leads to repression and totalitarianism. Atheism is not a reason to kill, but killing in the name of Marxist ideology and communism sure are. Ask anyone who survived the Gulag, or Cuba, or Poland, or Russia, or Hungary, or in China today. I know many who have – they’re not big fans of Mr. Marx.
Let’s also remember that Hitler was a Roman Catholic, never giving up his faith and no Nazi was EVER excommunicated from the RC Church (including Hitler), in fact priests were openly complicit in the Holocaust. Granted, there were those who gave their lives to save others who were religious, but they were few and far between.
So, you can use Russell to “sell” this conference, but if you read the man you’ll know that he’d reject both sides and agree that the fighting is more about who has the better god. An idea which Russell would find vapid since who really has a right to any land?
If we go back far enough in history, then Homo Sapiens really owe Neaderthals a huge apology.
P.S. Anders Breivik didn’t go on his rampage because he might not believe in god, but because he was insane!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik
If you want to make the argument that religious terrorists who kill in the name of their faith are insane as well, I might agree with you (perhaps).
It doesn’t let either off the hook legally or morally but at least we can know and define “crazy” when we see it practiced.
Since it’s off topic, I don’t think I’ll respond to issues like that of Bertrand Russell’s philosophical arguments. The teapot, for instance, is mentioned in my forthcoming book about how people have searched for proofs for and against the existence of God, and it is really more of a rhetorical argument than a rigorous philosophical one — effective for what it is, but no more. We can discuss those issues in a different context if you like. I’m an admirer of Russell in many respects, especially in his political efforts, his support of feminism, and his remarkable early work on formal logic. (There was even a brief phase in his life when he believed the Leibniz’s ontological argument for the existence of God to be valid!)
At the very end of his life, he actually did offer some short reflections on Israel, in which he had this to say, which seem as true today as they were in 1970:
This seems very much in keeping with the orientation of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine.
But to clarify what I said regarding terrorism, I never claimed that “the Communists killed millions because they were atheists.” I was merely speaking to your implication above that, (1) on the basis of the fact that the 9/11 attackers had religious motivations, (2) “So yes, they are terrorists” — that is, that part of the definition of terrorism is religious motivation. Am I right in understanding your logic in that way? Assuming I am, I was simply meaning to demonstrate with examples that religion is not the sole and exclusive motivation for what can be considered terrorism.
The issue of Breivik you raise is an interesting one, since so much of his trial revolved around the question of his sanity, and he was ultimately ruled sane. Not that I think a trial is the proper place to judge such things, but it is at least an indication of a recognition that he did do what he did on the basis of comprehensible reasons, and primarily racist-nationalist ones at that, even if we don’t happen to agree with his reasons or his tactics. Again: all I’m claiming is that we should not define terrorism according to whether or not it has religious motivations. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t.
Hi Matt,
I find little in this post with which to disagree, but I do think you’ve misread my own post on Electronic Intifada. I refer to the “futility” on relying *solely* on the UN, as opposed to making engagement with its structures one component of a broader, multi-pronged effort. This may not have been explicit in the title, but it was quite explicit in the post.
Thanks for sharing your reflections.
As I said in response to the Electronic Intifada article, those who wish to pursue the U.N. route, fine, but I am convinced that the best way to go is BDS!!! Boycott, Divest, Sanctions! History teaches us that court cases and legal decisions are important, at least for the record, but the principles of those decisions are never enforced until people “take to the streets” and march, sit-in, walk-out, boycott, picket etc. BDS all the way!!!
As I said in this article, the Russell Tribunal is NOT about a “UN route” to pursue. I AGREE that BDS is a key series of tactics to employ; that is why this article ends the way it does–giving a link to the major BDS web site and noting the importance of the BDS position in the larger movement. Rather than see what Russell represents as a “different route” than BDS, it is more correct to see the Russell framework, as I present it here, as fuel for taking these issues “to the streets.” One difference between a people’s tribunal and a legally-binding court case is that the information presented in such a forum (and the coalition brought together to make such forums possible) should have direct impact on the marches, sit-ins, boycotts, and pickets which we must intensify. In order for those direct actions to have their greatest effect, however, we must build beyond the confines of who today is considered a “Palestine rights” activist.