davis_square | (no subject)

sounds interesting, but 5 pm on weekdays isn't a good time to expect people to come out to see a film.

Very true, its probably the only time they could get the theater.
It can also be watched online here:
http://davidproject.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=70

I thought question 5 was to benefit all refugees, not just Palestinians. Wouldn't it also be a good thing for these "forgotten refugees"?

Question 5 specifically mentions Palestinian refugees by name, then question 6 singles out only Israel for economic sanctions.

I attended the Somerville Divestment Project's (SDP) event on Saturday night where the subject of Jewish refugees from Arab countries was broached. Several SDP members ludicrously stated that no Jewish refugee crisis occurred. (In reality, over 900,000 Jews were expelled or fled)

In my opinion, SDP isnt at all motivated by refugee rights.

Are these ballot questions in the upcoming general election? I wasn't aware that there were more than the statewide 3. Anywhere I can find the text of these online so I can make an informed decision rather than an ad-hoc one? And presumably there's a question 4. Is there a 7 or 8?

Thanks!

If you go to the Somerville city site, you can get a pdf of your actual ballot. 4 is "bring the troops home now" and there are no 7 or 8. None of 4,5,6 are binding.

Thanks. I'd looked for that before but somehow couldn't find it. Perhaps I was blinded by the completely obvious link on the front page. :)

Ah, looks like questions 4+ are only on the ballots for wards 2-3, 3, 4-3, 5, and 6. I'm over more towards Teele in Ward 7, so I can avoid the issue. :)

Go to http://www.wheredoivotema.com/ , type in your address, click on "Find My Election Information", then click on "My General Election Ballot". You'll get a sample ballot including all binding and non-binding questions.

Since questions 4, 5, and 6 are non-binding, there isn't much text - just a single sentence for each.

If the inititive mentioned both Palestinians and Jewish refugees by name would you support it?

Probably -- it would be a lot more balanced. But Somerville Divestment Project doesn't have much interest in balance.

Why only probably? The thing is the right of refugees to return after a conflict is one of the principles of modern international law. The initiative as written would apply to both refugees. Thus I would tend to support it because it is the right and legal position. The number and identities of specific refugee groups mentioned doesn't change that.

As for the interests of the partisans, from what I've gathered SDP wants to embarrass Israel for its illegal behavior. On the other side, I had the misfortune of talking to one of the anti-refugee folks during primary election. She supported ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. So if I was going to make my decision based upon the interests of various supporters, I'm still going to have to come down in favor of refugee initiative.

Does it, or should it include climate refugees? ()

The international law in question deals with war refugees. If the climage change caused a conflict (which it may) and someone fled the conflict they have a legal right to return when the conflict is over.

Regardless, if the resolutions pass the headline in the Globe and Journal will read "Somerville supports anti-Israel extremists" not "Somerville upholds international law and refugee rights"

The headline will be something about the Congressional elections and the change or lack of change in the majority party. Somewhere lost in the middle of the pape there will be a few paragraphs on a non-binding refugee right to return initiative that specifically mentions Palestinians.

yes because we don't even let New Orlenians return home. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3676263.html) Why should we care about what happens overseas?

You still haven't answered "if the inititive mentioned both Palestinians and Jewish refugees by name would you support it?"

This is a slightly belated response, but you are dead wrong. If anything, international law repudiates refugee right of return.

The Germans of the Sudetenland and Konigsberg, driven out in 1945, have no right of return. The refugees who fled across the Indian lines of partition in 1947 have no right of return (the Indian constitution expressly forbids their return). The same applies to Poles and Lithuanians driven west by Stalin in 1945, Greeks and Turks who were expressly exchanged for one another in the 1920s, to the Turks driven out of Bulgaria in the 1990's (yes, the 1990's).

This "right of return" is cited on behalf of one group and one group only.

For general international law see United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/protect/opendoc.pdf?tbl=PROTECTION&id=3b66c2aa10

For the laws specifically regarding Palestinians see Article 11 of UN General Assembly Resolution 194, specifically article 11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_General_Assembly_Resolution_194

Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;

Ethnic cleansing is not generally supported by international law at this time.

And here we have an organization citing a "right of return" for one group and one group only, while continuing its policy of not claiming that same right for dozens of refugee groups around the world, with numbers in the millions.

QED: the "right of return" is cited for one group and one group only.

The failed initiative said "right of all refugees, including Palestinians to return to their land of origin", not "the right to return of only Palestinians." I think ethnic cleansing is bad, don't you?

The organization I just referred to in my comments is the United Nations Organization, which you just in the comment above.

The UN has existed for 60 years now, during which it has treated exactly one group and one group only as being entitled to a "rigth of return", while repudiating it in regards to numerous other groups.

That other organization, the SDP, gives some rhetorical window dressing about other refugee groups, while claiming that there were no Jewish refugees driven out of Arab countries.

Both organizations prove all too aptly that international law does not in fact contain a "right of return" for all refugees.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees I sited gives refugees the right to return. That document specifically doesn't apply to Palestinians because other organizations have jurisdiction there. Resolution 194 deals specifically with the aftermath of the 1948 Israeli war of independence. It deals only with issues in Israel/Palestine one of which was refugees.

All refugees should have a right to go home.

Even the Sudetenland Germans?

I think that question is a technical violation of Godwins law.

Not to the Czechs, it isn't. Nor to the Sudetenlanders.

Both groups exist. Their case is being treated explicitly as one in which the refugees do not have the right of return.

If your agrument is that Palestinians should not be allowed to go home until all the world immigration problems are solved your just being silly. For that matter in the case of the Sudeten Germans you might want to brush up on inter-Europe immigration policy in the EU.

When you find yourself defending ethnic cleansing you should realize you lost the argument.

My argument is that there is no universal right of return, as shown by the actions of such organizations as the UN.

Are you ready to concede that much, or are you going to claim that the Sudetenland Germans do, in fact, have the right of return?

After the Sudetenlanders, there are other groups that also are relevant.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees recognizes the general right to return of refugees.

I guess you didn't read up on EU immigration policy. Take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_of_the_European_Union

You will note this sentence "the right of free movement and residence throughout the Union and the right to apply to work in any position." So any German, Sudeten or otherwise can move to and work in the Czech Republic. Europe has decided ethnic cleansing is bad. Why do you keep trying to support it?

They could move into the Czech republic. They would not get their property back except if they bought it, and they would not be Czech citizens, so that is hardly a "right of return" to be a foreigner in the land you "returned" to.

So, are you ready to concede that there is not, in fact, a universal right of return?

I still don't see anywhere where I said I supported ethnic cleansing. I certainly would not advocate any more acts of it. The Palestinians, however (poll after poll shows this) are stringly in favor of doing more ethnic cleansing in the near future.

Of Jews, that is.

Not allowing refugees to come home after a conflict is ethnic cleansing.

Then international law supports ethnic cleansing. In case after case after case.

Start with the Indian constitution. Then one that said anyone who left India to Pakistan in 1947 is banned from returning.

So you are saying that Palestinians should not be allowed to go home because international law is imperfectly applied? That is a very lame argument. People should be allowed to come home after a conflict. It is just common decency.

I am saying that Palestinians should not be allowed to go "home" because international law does not support their return. In every case except that of the Palestinians, international law held that refugee status is not heritable, and that if a refugee finds himself unable to return home, tough luck for his kids, who must find a home elsewhere for themselves.

It isn't very nice, but that is how international law treats every refugee group except the Palestinians.

The Palestinians are now a FOURTH GENERATION refugee group. There is no other group allowed to keep calling themselves refugees. Not a one.

As for common decency, Palestinian public opinion is indecent in what it supports. I can cite case after case of ethnic cleansing in which Palestinian public opinion sided with the cleanser and against the cleansees. Starting with the case of the Kurds of Kirkuk (cleansed by Saddam in the 1990s, and whose return to Kirkuk is now being impeded).

When I see common decency in Palestinian public opinion, I might care. That will of course be one cold day in Hell.

Lukid/Kadima and Hamas deserve each other. Unfortunately a lot of innocent people don't deserve them. So don't expect me to support your side that dirty war.

I am not asking you to support a side. I am asking you to admit that international law does not support a right of return.

Now, I have repeatedly shown you how international law treated the case of several refugee groups:

The Sudetenland Germans.

The Konigsberg Germans.

The Vilnius Poles.

The refugees who fled India for Pakistan.

The Turks who fled Greece and Bulgaria, and vice versa.

And there are plenty of others, adding up to around a hundred times the number of Palestinians driven out in 1948.

None of them are given the right of return, because refugee status is not heritable.

That is international law. Ready to concede to reality?

Thanks -- this helps clarify my thinking. I'm not 100% in agreement with many of Israel's decisions, but I certainly won't go along with a group that only promotes the rights of certain refugees while denying the existence of others.

Not to throw this discussion headlong into a political debate, but I'm having a difficult time discerning a few motivations of SDP. Why right-of-return mentioned for Palestinian refugees only? Why the link between questions 5 and 6? More importantly for my decision, how does someone who supports Israel as a concept, but not the current Israeli government make the "right" choice in the face of two seemingly opposing (yet narrow minded) sides? Any thoughts are appreciated.

Yeah, I'm also frustrated with this issue in general. On one hand, I don't think that Somerville should be investing in anything other than Somerville, and certainly not investing in the Middle East. So I support the divestment ideaas a way to bring our money into the local business community, but the divestment group itself does seem to be rather meanspirited. And the anti-divestment group just seems silly and reactionary.

All I know is that when I vote, I'm going to ignore the groups and vote only based on the questions themselves. However, I wish there was a place that gave good background information about the questions. I have no idea what this refuge one is all about.

You can also elect to vote neither yes nor no on and individual question. That's a completely valid voting choice.

Even if you could have a ballot question requiring Somerville to invest in Somerville only, I'd say it'd be a very poor idea. Basically, you would be taking away employee's right to good investments (or to decide investments themselves) and forcing them to invest in something that may not be economically sound.

The point is, city of Somerville doesn't have all that much money on its own. A lot of the money it controls is in pension plans of its employees. It's unfair to jeopardize those pension plans in order to further someone's racist or some other agenda.

What happens to those Somerville pension plans when the Middle East erupts in all out war? Either we end up profiting off of the carnage (thus becoming dependent on war for money) or we end up losing it all. I don't see anything good coming out of investing in any place that is unstable. Know what I mean?

Ultimately, my agenda is to make Somerville financially sustainable on it's own. The only way I see to do that is to invest in Somerville, not someplace else. If Somerville businesses are not doing well, it seems to me that the best policy for the government would be to find out what they need to be successful and then invest in them. It would be good for Somerville in every way to be able to hold it's own in the world economy, wouldn't it? And you may think that this is a pipe dream. But it can't possibly happen if we don't want it to. So at least we could start by wanting it to happen and go from there...

But you can't predict ahead of time which place will erupt in instability, violence and what not. Last year investing in New Orleans would've been a disaster, too, and there've been a lot of unpredictable events (heck, the whole point of the market is its unpredictability. Investments in the riskier places carry higher return and can be buffered by safer investments). The safest investment won't bring you much return.

But that's still besides the point. It's not my place to decide what someone's pension plan should look. Nor is it the place of the legislature to decide the investment portfolio -- that should be left to investment specialists.

A more profitable Somerville is the Somerville whose investments are economically sound, not dictated by whims of racist policies.

And even if I were to agree that investing only in Somerville would be a good thing, voting yes on prop. 5 and 6 is a very bad start to getting there.

Questions 5 and 6 are on the ballot only in Denise Provost's legislative district, which covers about half of Somerville. Question 4 is also on the ballot in many other parts of the state, but not in the parts of Somerville that are in Tim Toomey's or Carl Sciortino's districts.

All of these are non-binding questions, "instructing" the legislator to vote in a particular way. Anyone can put such questions on the ballot by collecting 200 valid signatures within a legislative district.

I'm enthusiastically supporting Question 4, to immediately withdraw all US troops from Iraq. I'll be distributing their flyers around my neighborhood later this week.

I'm voting no on 5 and 6, primarily because I don't want to reward the obnoxious behavior of their sponsors, the Somerville Divestment Project. They have disrupted a Board of Aldermen meeting (and been expelled from it), they have harassed a friend of mine by calling her a "racist" in public, and they refused to follow established rules when collecting signatures for a city referendum campaign last year.

I see that this film is sponsored by the David Project, which is trying hard to prevent the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB) from finishing the mosque it is building at Roxbury Crossing. The David Project throws a lot of vague accusations about 'terrorist connections' against the wall in hopes the some of them will stick. This conduct creates needless discord between the local Jewish and Muslim communities.

Not that I'm a great fan of the ISB, either. They are suing the David Project and various news media, claiming defamation. I think even wrongheaded speech is free speech and deserves to be protected, and this lawsuit has a chilling effect.

Nobody's right if everybody's wrong.

I received this email this week:

Help the Somerville Coalition for Middle East Peace Defeat the Somerville Divestment Project - Now!
In 2004, an extremist group, the Somerville Divestment Project (SDP), tried and failed to get Somerville's aldermen to pass the country's first municipal divest-from-Israel resolution. In 2005, they tried and failed to collect enough signatures to get divestment onto the city-wide ballot. Now they are back again, having taken advantage of lenient requirements to get onto the ballot of a state district, with two questions targeting Israel on the ballot in Somerville's Middlesex 27th district

With your help, we can make sure they fail again! We are looking for volunteers to hold signs and distribute literature in the days and weeks leading up to the election, November 7. We will also need volunteers to be at polling places on Election Day. The district has 11 polling locations open from 7 AM until 8 PM. The most critical times are the morning (7-10 AM) and evening (5-8 PM).

Anyone who can join us can contact us at info@somervillepeace.org. Please include: Your name; Best e-mail address for communication; Hours you can volunteer on the 7th; Whether or not you will be able to tale part in other campaign activities before the election.

Because polls open early, we'd appreciate it if people who live in or near Somerville could sign up for morning hours if possible.

We will follow up with you next week regarding plans for polling day. Thanks and with your help, we might be able to make divestment history in Somerville.

Jon Haber
Somerville Coalition for Middle East Peace

I think the town should concentrate on not losing money that they invest.

Look how this institution deals with politcal fire (http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=931) about their investments. And see how much money they are making. (http://financeprofessorblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/yales-money-guru-shares-wisdom-with.html)

The movie yesterday was interesting, but there were only four people in the audience. The presenter did not stay after the film, so two of us who would like to have talked to her instead just walked away with unanswered questions.

(no subject)

no subject

no subject

Confusing

Re: Confusing

Re: Confusing

Re: Confusing

Re: Confusing

Re: Confusing

Re: Confusing

Re: Confusing

Re: Confusing

Re: Confusing

Re: konfusing

Re: konfusing

Re: konfusing

Perspective

Re: konfusing

Re: konfusing

Re: Confusing

Re: Confusing

Re: Confusing

Re: Confusing

Re: Confusing

Re: Confusing

Re: Confusing

Re: Confusing

Re: Confusing

Re: Confusing

Re: Confusing

Re: Confusing

Re: Confusing

Re: Confusing

Re: Confusing

Re: Confusing

Re: Confusing

Re: Confusing

Re: Confusing

Re: Confusing

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

A way to help

Re: A way to help

no subject