Resigning from Cohen and Amnesty.

by redjade Tue Aug 18, 2009 23:55

New York, NY, August 18 – Amnesty International has announced today that it will abstain from any involvement in the Leonard Cohen concert in Tel Aviv and will not be party to any fund that benefits from the concert‘s proceeds. A number of media accounts had reported that Amnesty International was to manage or otherwise partner in a fund created from the proceeds of Cohen’s concert in Israel that would be used to benefit Israeli and Palestinian groups. Amnesty International’s announcement today followed an international outcry over the human rights organization’s reported involvement in the Leonard Cohen concert fund, and an earlier international call for Cohen to boycott apartheid Israel.

[....]

On August 5th, eleven groups launched a letter writing campaign to Amnesty International which has resulted in hundreds of emails sent. Among those urging Amnesty International to reject involvement with the Cohen concert are former Amnesty International USA board member Prof. Naseer Aruri, Amnesty International USA’s former Midwest Regional Director Doris Strieter, peace activist Kathy Kelly, and a number of Amnesty International members.

• more at: http://www.pacbi.org/etemplate.php?id=1080

by Diarmuid Breatnach - personal capacity Tue Aug 18, 2009 16:45

My mother, Lucila Breatnach (nee Mentxaka-Hellmann) was an active Amnesty member years ago, as was my father Deasún (both died October 2007). Lucila was more: she founded the Dún Laoire branch, designed a mobile display that she set up in the shopping centre there and was also Coordinator for the Andean Region in Ireland. She was also very disappointed with the organisation over their stand (or lack of it) on Ireland (a previous commentator made reference to the location of Amnesty's headquarters in London and the impact of this on their outlook).

I myself have been disappointed with the organisation a number of times; although the headquarters have annually issued a condemnation of Spanish state torture of detainees (Basque separatist activists prominent among the list), the Dublin office has consistently neglected to respond to DIBSC correspondence on its position on that and similar issues and, in the one case when it did, to comply with its undertaking to get back to the DIBSC on the issue.

I personally believe that this facilitation of boycott-dodging and of dirty money laundering is, however, one of the worst things Amnesty has done. It is a sin of commission, not of omission and gives assistance to one of the worst states in recent history in the face of rising international disgust at its actions.

I do think that Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions are an important contribution to offering the beleaguered Palestinians solidarity (at their request) and to setting up a united front of abhorence against the Israeli state's actions. Regrettably, there is little else by way of action open to us and, should we make this a strong response as we did with South Africa, we may be able to force our politicians to assist in putting the squeeze on, by making it difficult for Irish companies to profit by Israel's actions and to propose denying Israel the status of "favoured trading partner" with the EU.

by Filiament Sun Aug 09, 2009 19:30

"Supporting Israeli people is not the same as endorsing Israel's actions."

I fully agree. However Dylan's song clearly endorses Israel's actions.

by li'l lulu Sun Aug 09, 2009 16:11

Supporting Israeli people is not the same as endorsing Israel's actions.

by Filament Sat Aug 08, 2009 15:06

I hope Pepe doesn't have any Bob Dylan albums either. He wrote a song featured on his "Infidels" album called "Neighborhood Bully" which comes down heavily on the side of Israel.

This boycotting Israel business gets a bit tedious when one realises how many decent people support it and how much Israel contributes to the world in technology and medicine etc..

by li'l lulu Sat Aug 08, 2009 12:55

I read that proceeds go to Israeli & Palestinian peace groups.

by Fred Johnston Wed Aug 05, 2009 17:35

So what stance do Amnesty indeed to take on Cohen?

by redjade Tue Aug 04, 2009 17:20

'If you say that the two sides are equally responsible of human rights violations....' blah blah blah...

Pepe, please show us where Amnesty said this? a link? a quote?

please read and watch:
PDF: 'Israel/Gaza: Operation "Cast Lead": 22 days of death and destruction'
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/015/2009/...n.pdf

I am an active member of Amnesty International, there are many reasons to criticize the organisation, most for its pseudo-democracy and how the London office dominates the agenda. But, then I have never been a member of any organization that didn't have its problems.

In regards to Raymond's criticism, I agree with most of it. And I do not think Leonard Cohen should be allowed to use Amnesty as cover. It smacks of opportunism from both Leonard Cohen and Amnesty International.

Caption: Video Id: HABy2NpK0B8 Type: Youtube Video
July 2009 Amnesty Video about Israeli Attack on Gaza, including the use of white phosphorus

by Pepe Sun Aug 02, 2009 23:33

I was a small supporter of Amnesty as well. I did support them for what they did with Guantanamo (though I found odd that they did not take a strong position on the occupation of Iraq, but would criticize Guantanamo that it is not the worst of the atrocities of the US, but liberals seem to have a fixation with guantanamo while they turn a blind eye to the brutal occupation of entire countries). After Gaza though I felt I had enough of their "play fair on both sides"... even if "both sides" are uneven and have a history in which one is clearly the oppressor of the other. You can't say "all sides violate the international humanitarian law" and don't mention that one of the sides happens to be occupied by the other, and that one of the sides practice a daily, systematic negation of the humanity of the other side. Not to talk that whatever Palestinians have done wrong, Israel has done it a thousands times more often and worse.

If yo say that the two sides are equally responsible of human rights violations because one side (Palestinians) killed three civilians and the other (Israel) killes one thousand and three hundred, the message of Amnesty is unequivocal: the lives of Palestinians are much, much cheaper than those of Israelis. And that, whether they like it or not, is an imperial and colonial argument. Amnesty, despite all their rhetoric, reproduce a racist argument: that the lives of the colonizers are dearer that those of the colonized. Their whole position on Gaza was too much of hard pill to swallow so I stopped my humbre direct debit with them. But now that they have taken an active part in undermining the boycot, they are showing their true colours without any sense of embarassment. Sickening.

As Desmond Tutu said, if in a case of blatant oppression you declare yourself to be neutral, you are effectively siding with the oppressor. I do not like the "with me or against me" argument, but Amnesty is clearly a human rights talkshop for a liberal sector of the colonialists.

ps. I never liked Cohen though... I find him a depressive, snobby and grey fart.