Brooklyn For Peace Walk for Peace: August 9, 2006
Remarks by David Tykulsker

Friends and Neighbors:

Thank you for coming to this protest to demonstrate your concern about events that are transpiring in the Middle East, and to call for: an immediate cease fire; the ending of all arms shipments to all parties in the region; an end to the Israeli occupation of Lebanon; a prompt exchange of prisoners and an international conference to address the problems, particularly the problems of Palestine, that continue to make this area so full of turmoil and violence.

Because I will be focusing most of this speech on the actions of Israel and the U.S., let me begin by being very clear that the actions of Hizbollah in attacking Israeli civilians are wrong, and must be condemned unconditionally. The actions of Iran and Syria in arming Hizbollah for its attacks on Israeli citizens are wrong, and must be condemned unconditionally. Anyone who calls for driving the Israelis into the sea must be condemned unconditionally, along with all calls for ethnic cleansing of any of the peoples in the area. As I will emphasize, there is one standard of international law and morality by which we judge everyone, and by these standards, all the above actions are wrong and must end immediately.

My determination to focus on Israel and its US ally is based on two propositions. First, the actions of the Israelis in their attacks on Lebanon and Palestine are disproportionately so much greater than the actions of those who are attacking the Israelis as to amount to crimes in and of themselves. Second, the Israeli assumption of exemption from international law and morality is enabled by the United States. Because we who are gathered here are members of the U.S. polity, and because that polity remains ostensibly democratic, we are responsible for doing our best to change US policy, which is in need of prompt and significant change.

Let us briefly review the current catastrophe: Close to one thousand civilians, a disproportionate number of whom are children, have been killed in Lebanon with dozens more killed in Gaza and Israel. The Lebanese infrastructure, those things that underpin civil life like power stations and water purification plants, have been pulverized. Numerous Gazans, including a quarter of the Palestinian Authority's cabinet and six cabinet ministers are being held without charges. Approximately 1 million Lebanese have been turned into refugees. Perhaps 30,000 Israeli troops are now occupying Lebanese territory with no prospect of this conquest of another country by force being rolled back in the immediate future.

All of this is directly due to the actions of the United States. Israel is currently the largest recipient of U.S. economic and military aid, and has been for more than two generations. Many of those weapons and bombs, including the cluster bombs that have been scattered in civilian areas, say quite literally "Made In USA". Has the Bush Administration obeyed the Foreign Arms Export Act, which limits American weapons to uses in self-defense? No! It rushed through Congress, with no opportunity for debate, resolutions asserting that Israel was acting in self-defense, with the sole purpose of making it "legal" to continue exporting arms to Israel - a travesty in which members of both parties eagerly participated. Has the Bush Administration used its considerable influence with the Israeli government to slow down the awesome Israeli military attack in Lebanon? No! It has instead speeded up deliveries of armaments so that the attack could proceed at yet greater levels of violence. Has the world's sole superpower used its vast diplomatic resources to press for a rapid cease-fire and end to the mayhem? No! The Administration has done all within its power to prevent a rapid cease-fire in hopes that Israeli violence would "solve" the "problem" of Hizbollah.

But the US role extends beyond these obvious points. The Bush Administration has been very clear that it is intent on "remaking" the Middle East; indeed, this is the goal of its whole policy in the area. This goal explains the determination to invade Iraq, notwithstanding that the Administration knew (or should have known) that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, and notwithstanding that the Administration knew (or should have known) that the Baathists had no ties to al-Qaeda.

This "remaking" should not be confused with democratization. Indeed, it appears that governments reflecting the will of their people are about the last thing that our government really wants. This can be seen in the not very subtle demand for regime change in Iran, despite the elections process that has been taking place in that nation which led to the election of President Ahmadinejad. It can also be seen in the unconditional support given to Egypt, a deeply repressive and anti-democratic regime under Sadat and Mubarak, which continues to be the second largest recipient of US military aid (after Israel, which is in first place.) And it can be seen most clearly in Palestine, where in general elections adjudged free and fair, the electorate voted in a Hamas government. In response to this exercise in democracy, the Bush Administration has done its utmost to starve the Palestinian people and to prevent Hamas from being able to govern by having all aid to Palestine cut off.

Rather than democracy, the Bush Administration's goal in remaking the Middle East is to solve permanently the issue of Israel's "security". As currently used, this is a polite way of saying that the Israelis are free to seize Jerusalem and whatever other parts of the West Bank they wish, and to give the remaining cantons to the Palestinians in a form not meant to be a viable nation. In this light, what was done to the Baathist regime in Iraq was meant as a warning to other antagonistic powers (Iran and Syria) as to what would happen to them if they didn't line up behind this version of Israel's security.

Israeli exceptionalism, by which I mean its claim to be exempt from the rules of international law and morality that are supposed to govern the conduct of other states, is longstanding, but until recently had to face the competing proposition of "land for peace" i.e. that it was required by Security Council Resolution 242 (and others) to return the Occupied Territories in return for guaranties that no further attacks on Israel would be made. This necessarily requires negotiations with the Palestinians. The U.S. too was until recently committed, at least nominally, to "land for peace", until the Sharon government, followed by the present Olmert administration, decided to dispense with any pretense of negotiations with the Palestinians and instead determined that it would unilaterally annex much of the West Bank, leaving the Palestinians only a set of non-viable, non-contiguous cantons. In other words, it would declare that it had successfully engaged in the military conquest of much of the West Bank in defiance of international law which, since World War II, has rejected any claim to legitimize the conquest and seizure of territory by force.

The U.S. response to Sharon and Olmert has been a literal and figurative blank check. Bush claims that he is just recognizing "facts on the ground", as if that could possibly be an answer to such a clear violation of international law. Indeed, the recognition of "facts on the ground" i.e. conquest by force, is in complete derogation of the very idea of law, indeed a not very disguised means of claiming that "might makes right."

This actual American policy is bad enough. But our situation is yet worse because even the basic facts of this U.S. policy cannot be discussed in any serious manner, let alone be debated here as to whether this policy is the right one. To take just a few examples:

1. Israel is a nuclear power. It has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and as a result there has never been a single inspection of the Israeli nuclear facilities. The contrast with Iran, that so-called outlaw state, could not be greater. Iran has signed the NPT, and has allowed not just the inspections called for under the treaty, but greater and more intrusive inspections. The Bush Administration continually bellows on about the need for yet more inspections, but its silence with regard to the Israeli nuclear program is deafening.
2. At the beginning of the current conflict, Israel bombed four of the petroleum storage tanks located on the Mediterranean Sea and used by one of the country's principal power stations. As a result, oil has spilled into the Mediterranean and is now polluting many of the beaches of Lebanon. While not the Exxon Valdez, this is a spill of major proportions, and under any other circumstances would be considered an ecological crisis. As an attorney, I have been taught we are allowed to conclude that an actor intends the highly probable consequence of his or her actions, and hence it is clear that Israel intended this pollution to have occurred. If there were any doubt, the actions of its air force and navy in blocking meaningful remediation should clinch the point. Isn't this a form of chemical warfare, a weapon of mass destruction, conducted against the people and ecosystems of Lebanon? Our government has ratified this horrifying crime.
3. The history of this conflict did not start six weeks ago. Israel is currently holding many thousands of Palestinians as prisoners, most without charges and often having tortured them. Israel has repeatedly violated Lebanese sovereignty to take prisoners, although it has in the past negotiated prisoner exchanges, something that even Sharon was able to accomplish. The current round of violence started with Israeli seizure of two Palestinians in Gaza, (as reported by the BBC on June 24, 2006) not the Palestinian attack on Israeli soldiers, which followed one day later.

You have probably noticed certain parallels between what the Israelis are doing in their neighborhood and US policy in Iraq. These parallels are many, principally because they are rooted in a premise that both Israel and the United States (the two war-making parties) are exceptions to the rules of international law and morality. To take just two additional examples:

1. Both Israel's incursion into Lebanon, and the US attack on Iraq, have been met with unexpected resistance. Some proposed that an "international force" be inserted in Lebanon and Iraq to put down the resistance. But of course, such a force is highly unlikely to be able to accomplish what the far more powerful militaries of the US and Israel have been unable to do (disarm the Iraqi resistance or Hizbollah). And of course any such international force would likely become the target of nationalist resistance, leading to civil war.
2. In both Iraq and Lebanon, the destruction and violence have been extraordinary, calling into question the viability of each state. Is that a mere coincidence, or is that the unacknowledged goal of the policy?

Are the Bush Administration's policies advancing the interests of the people of the US and in particular for those of us who live in New York City?

1. We have known since studies of the World War II aerial campaign against Germany that bombing and attacking civilians does not weaken their willingness to resist the attacker, but rather strengthens their resolve. We saw this in Vietnam, and we experienced it here in New York after the attacks of five years ago. It is happening right now in Iraq. The Israeli bombardment and invasion have done nothing but increase support for Hizbollah across all sectors of Lebanese society, and brought anger against the US to unprecedented levels.
2. The idea that sufficiently violent force will change people's political orientation, apart from being terrorist in its essence, makes clear that the only language that the US government understands is force. It will not be long before other governments besides the Democratic People's Republic of Korea draw conclusions that they need weapons of mass destruction as a deterrent.
3. The U.S. and the Israeli insistence on observance of only certain UN Security Council Resolutions i.e. those concerning Lebanon, while ignoring others e.g. those that require land for peace like Resolution 242, is more than simple hypocrisy. It effectively reduces the Security Council to an agent of US policy, and thus poisons the very notion that there is a body that can legitimately pronounce on international law in particular crises. Indeed, it is entirely consonant with the Bush Administration's continued attempts to destroy the very notion of international law.
4. Current US policy is, as is now being increasingly noted, an effective invitation to additional terrorist attacks. In New York City, we have twice been the victims of such attacks, and thus continuation of present policy only offers more of the same.

But in addition to the horrors of the current situation, we are confronted by an obligation to stop an even wider war. Israel's stated war goals, the military destruction of Hizbollah, do not appear likely to be able to be achieved by the current military posture. Stopping now with Hizbollah not disarmed will cause grave political difficulties for the Olmert government within Israel. Hence, the result has been and continues to be a gradual escalation of the scope of military engagement. To those old enough to remember US policy in Vietnam, this will seem familiar. Throughout the course of this war, both the US and Israel have been describing Hizbollah as the puppet of Syria or Iran. At some point, the temptation to dispense with the puppet and attempt to smash the puppeteer becomes irresistible, especially when this coincides with calls within the Bush Administration to use military force to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities.

Thus, it is imperative that we call for an immediate and unconditional cease fire between Israel and Lebanon. Just as we demand that there be no permanent US military presence in Iraq, we must also demand that there be no permanent Israeli military presence in Lebanon, and ultimately in Palestine as well.

Indeed, we need to change more generally the course of US policy in the Middle East. As an immediate matter, we can ask our Brooklyn representatives who have not signed on to Res. 450, which calls for the US government to work for an immediate cease fire in the region, to do so without further delay. Representatives Owens and Velazquez have already done so; but directly across the street from us is the office of Representative Towns, who has not signed on. Nor have Representatives Nadler, Weiner and Fosella. They need to hear from us, as do Senators Clinton and Schumer.

Additionally, we need to open up the debate on where US policy in this region should go from here. The silencing of debate, which takes the form of the most virulent attacks on any doubts or questioning, as well as a "take no prisoners" approach by the pro-Israeli political action committees like AIPAC, has been much too effective. One immediate action we can take is to request that NY 1 allow Jonathan Tasini, whose position is close to that which I have articulated here, to debate Senator Clinton, whose position is entirely consonant with Bush's. Everyone should contact Robert Hardt, NY1's Director of Politics, 212 379-3330, Robert.Hardt@ny1news.com, to request that this debate go forward.

More generally, we need to discuss whether it's such a good idea for US policy to so uncritically give Israel a blank check for its planned annexation of the West Bank; we need to question the whole idea that Israel and the US are exceptions to the requirement that international law and morality applies to all. Bush's "war on terror" is really nothing more than an attack on the very idea of law. In Bush's formulation of the "war on terror," an all-powerful commander-in-chief is above the law, not curbed by any outside legal constraint, such as the U.S. Constitution, Congressional statutes or international law. Indeed, such exceptional law-ignoring powers can be extended to necessary allies, such as Israel, simply by word of the commander-in-chief.

In sum, the links between American exceptionalism in Iraq and at home, and Israeli exceptionalism in Lebanon and Palestine are many, and they enable each other. Ned Lamont's victory in Connecticut tells us that we have started to make real headway with the American public in having it question that exceptionalism in Iraq. Cynthia McKinney's defeat yesterday in Georgia tells us how far we still need to go in having our fellow citizens question Israeli exceptionalism.

Thank you.

See local Brooklyn press coverage in the Courier-Life papers.

David Tykulsker is the Vice-Chairperson of Brooklyn For Peace.