Wednesday 25 May 2011

Alison Weir,Helen Thomas and Move Over AIPAC

- 25. May, 2011

Setting the Record Straight about Helen Thomas and Move Over AIPAC

by Alison Weir / My Catbird Seat


I had not been planning to write about the controversy inside the Move Over AIPAC coalition that occurred awhile ago, but I’ve discovered that an inaccurate statement was published by Mondoweiss about this.
I’m surprised this statement was sent to Weiss, since most people had sought to keep this discussion only within the coalition itself. However, now that this has become public, it seems important to set the record straight:
Awhile ago Move Over AIPAC organizers issued a press release, which they didn’t send to the coalition but which was published by a number of Israeli and pro-Israel publications. It said:
“Helen Thomas was invited to speak, as a journalist who is fearless about questioning power and unnecessary wars, but because some of her comments have sparked controversy, several members of the coalition and our grassroots community had concerns about her appearance.”
As a member of two coalition organizations, I was extremely concerned about this. I felt it was important that Helen not be pushed out of our conference as she had been pushed out of numerous other speaking engagements by the ADL and Israel partisans, and I tried to contact the organizers about the situation by phone and email.

Unfortunately, I received no response.
I then contacted some other coalition members, endorsers, and panelists, who looked into the situation more.

Two individuals managed to speak to Helen Thomas directly. Thomas told them that she “did not withdraw voluntarily,” that she had been “pressured into it,” and that she had been “disinvited.”

James Abourezk wrote an article containing information on this.

We also learned that Jewish Voice for Peace had objected to Thomas. We were unable to discover who else (if anyone) objected.

It seemed extremely inappropriate to us that in a coalition of about 100 groups, only one or two had been involved in an important discussion about a prominent speaker.

While JVP has often done excellent work and many of its members are exemplary human rights defenders, the organization also, by its own admission, includes members who support Israel’s right to discriminate. Jeffrey Blankfort has occasionally written about this.

It’s perhaps indicative that JVP’s media monitoring website had carried an article that, while it criticized the media’s handling of Thomas, stated: “It’s impossible to defend Grande Dame of White House journalists Helen Thomas’ recent off the cuff statement …. It was deeply offensive and wrong.”

My article on Thomas provided an entirely different perspective, as did that by Ralph Nader.

A number of prominent endorsers and panelists, among these James Abourezsk, Paul Findley, Hatem Bazian (founder of American Muslims for Palestine), Hedy Epstein, Hassan Fouda, and a number of others (there were eventually about 20 signatories) sent a statement to coalition members saying:
Dear fellow Move Over AIPAC endorsers,


We are deeply concerned that Helen Thomas has said that she was pressured into withdrawing from speaking at the upcoming Move Over AIPAC conference. This was apparently done at the behest of two anonymous groups, one of which threatened to leave the conference if Helen spoke at the event. It appears that none of the other close to 100 groups endorsing the conference were part of this discussion. Since the Lobby prefers to work in darkness, the objecting parties should not be allowed to remain invisible. Granting them anonymity enables exactly what we oppose.

We are appalled that conference organizers caved to pressure to remove Thomas from the agenda and we call on them to reconsider this decision.

The ADL and associated organizations and individuals have pushed Helen out of numerous previously scheduled lectures, pressured organizations to rename or dissolve journalistic scholarships in her name, and have otherwise committed a sustained assault on one of the nation’s only top journalists willing to oppose the Israel Lobby. Please see the recent CounterPunch article on Helen Thomas by James Abourezk and the article last year by Ralph Nader denouncing the smears and bigotry of anti-Semitism against Arab American, Helen Thomas, that led to the dictated firing of this legendary journalistic pioneer.

We will not stand by and allow this to be done at a conference we are endorsing and whose stated goal is to oppose this very lobby.

We call on Move Over AIPAC to affirm the invitation to Helen Thomas to speak at the upcoming event. As a veteran White House correspondent, Helen has had many years to observe the workings of the Lobby from the inside and can undoubtedly make uniquely salient contributions to the event.

We invite all conference endorsers of commitment and principle who refuse to see Helen Thomas silenced once again – this time by a project of which we are a part – to join us.
I am pleased that the organizers then re-invited Helen Thomas to speak. I am not surprised that she declined to do so.

Now most of us are moving forward as positively as possible. I am pleased that a number of excellent op-eds relating to the conference have been successfully placed (including by the Washington Report‘s Janet McMahon and by Hedy Epstein), and that the event will most likely be a success.

Nevertheless, the fact that one or two individuals/organizations played a major behind-the-scenes role in the unfortunate episode with Helen Thomas (and probably continue to do so on other aspects) is disturbing.

Once again, very few Palestinian organizations – who probably have the valid worry that they are being used as tokens – are taking part. Even those who have publicly remained as endorsers have withdrawn their active participation.
I am looking forward to a future conference and a movement in which this type of thing doesn’t occur; in which groups with partial commitment do not call the shots, and in which the full diversity of this movement for justice is integrally represented. I feel that time is coming.

Alison Weir is President, of If Americans Knew and Council for the National Interest Foundation (CNIF). CNI seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values, protects our national interests, and contributes to a just solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is CNI’s goal to restore a political environment in America in which voters and their elected officials are free from the undue influence and pressure of foreign countries and their partisans.
The Council for the National Interest Foundation (CNIF) is an independent 501(c)3 non-profit organization that provides information and analysis on the Middle East, its relationship to the United States, and about policy formation regarding this region. Its primary focus is on Israel-Palestine.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

1 comment:

nahida -Exiled Palestinian said...

It appears that, yet again, Anti-zionist Jewish organizations are trying to silence our supporters, to frame the debate, to secure the future of their brethren in occupied Palestine and to STEER the course of our Liberation as Palestinians


I would invite people to hear the Palestinian voice, here:

A strategy of liberation requires emancipation





* No decent human-being would demand to live on STOLEN land and still claims to have some humanity


* No decent human-being could claim that the perpetrator should have the same rights as the victim


* Palestinians are under no obligation to hold back their march for freedom, to curtail their aims or to smother their rights for the sake of accommodating and not offending their Jewish supporters



* Palestinians are always grateful and appreciative of the hard work and dedication of all their supporters whomever they are, however, Palestinians have NO obligation to adopt the aims and objectives of the anti-zionist Jewish supporters instead of their own



* Dismissing the Palestinian voice as radical, reactionary, intolerant, or unreasonable, and requiring the Jewish-anti-zionist validation to have legitimacy to speak for Palestine, contradicts basic concepts of human rights and does not do justice to Palestinians.




* Palestinians have the ultimate right to choose their vision for their future, of FREE Palestine including the type of government, the writing of constitution, the construction and implementation of their legal and juristic system, which stems from and corresponds to their ethics and reflects and protects their culture.



* Palestinians have the ultimate right to make the final decision on who is allowed to stay in liberated Palestine and who is not, using the legal procedure of their own choice.



* The future of the Palestinian struggle and the aim of liberation of Palestine should not be designed to shield the occupier from paying the full price of his crimes; including the punishment of all those who participated in transgression, and the deportation of the illegitimate Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants who colonized Palestine forcefully and were engaged in acts of aggression against Palestinians including serving in the IOF



* All refugee and their descendents have the unconditional right to come back home, they, the rightful indigenous owners are also entitled to the reinstatement of ALL confiscated (stolen) land and property, compensation for all their losses over the many years of exile and they are also entitled to Palestinian citizenship wherever they are.



* The aims and dreams of most Palestinians are not confined to the change of zionist regime or the vacuous declaration of abandonment of zionism by the Jewish-zionist occupiers, but rather to the FULL Liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all their rights



* It is the privilege of Palestinian to decide who should stay in their homeland and who’s not.



* After a century of terror, theft and crimes, had the Zionist shown any signs of remorse, respect or willingness to be decent guests, had they embraced with open arms the hospitable people of Palestine rather than destroying them with fire-arms; they might have had a chance to be accepted and forgiven. Not any more, as far as I am concerned. They have lost that opportunity
.