Greetings for Diana Buttu

by Uri Avnery

A few days ago, a not so well-known Palestinian woman received an unusual honor. An article of hers was published on top of the first page of the most respected newspaper on earth: New York Times.

The editors defined the writer, Diana Buttu, as: “a lawyer and a former adviser to the negotiating team of the Palestine Liberation Organization.”

I knew Diana Buttu when she first appeared on the Palestinian scene, in 2000, at the beginning of the second intifada. She was born in Canada, the daughter of Palestinian immigrants who tried hard to assimilate in their new homeland, and received a good Canadian education.

When the struggle in the occupied territories intensified, she returned to her parents’ homeland. The Palestinian participants of the negotiations with Israel, which started after the Oslo agreement, were impressed by the young lawyer who spoke excellent English — something rare — and asked her to join the national endeavor.

When the negotiations died clinically, Diana Buttu disappeared from my eyes. Until her dramatic reappearance last week.

The location and the headline of the article demonstrate the importance which the American editors saw in her argument. The headline was “Do we need a Palestinian Authority?” and further on, in another headline, “Shutter the Palestinian Authority.”

The argument of Diana Buttu seduces by its simplicity: the usefulness of the Palestinian Authority has passed. It should be liquidated. Now.

The Palestinian Authority, she says, was set up for a specific purpose: to negotiate with Israel for the end of the occupation and the creation of the hoped-for Palestinian state. By its very nature, that was a task limited in time.

According to the Oslo agreement, the negotiations for ending the occupation should have reached their goal in 1999. Since then, 18 years have passed without any movement towards a solution. The only thing that has moved was the settlement movement, which has reached by now monstrous dimensions.

In these circumstances, says Buttu, the Palestinian Authority has become a “subcontractor” of the occupation. The Authority helps Israel to oppress the Palestinians. True, it employs a large number of educational and medical personnel, but more than a third of its budget — some 4 billion dollars — go the “security.” The Palestinian security forces maintain a close cooperation with their Israeli colleagues. Meaning, they cooperate in upholding the occupation.

Also, Buttu complains about the lack of democracy. For 12 years now, no elections have taken place. Mahmoud Abbas (Abu-Mazen) rules in contravention of the Palestinian Basic Law.

Her solution is simple: “it’s time for the authority to go.” To abolish the authority, to return the responsibility for the occupied Palestinian population to the Israeli occupier and adopt a “new Palestinian strategy.”

What strategy, exactly?

Up to this point, Buttu’s arguments were lucid an logical. But from here on they become unclear and nebulous.

Before going on, I have to make some personal remarks.

I am an Israeli. I define myself as an Israeli patriot. As a son of the occupying nation I don’t think that I have the right to give advice to the occupied nation.

True, I have devoted the last 79 years of my life to the achievement of peace between the two nations — a peace that, I believe, is an existential necessity for both. Since the end of the 1948 war I preach the establishment of an independent State of Palestinian side by side with the State of Israel. Some of my enemies in the extreme Israeli Right even accuse me of having invented the “Two-State Solution” (thus deserving the title of “traitor.”)

In spite of all this, I have always abstained from giving the Palestinians advice. Even when Yasser Arafat declared several times publicly that I am his “friend,” I did not see myself as an adviser. I have expressed my views and voiced them many times in the presence of Palestinians, but from that point to giving advice, the distance is great.

Now, too, I am not ready to give advice to the Palestinians in general, and to Diana Buttu in particular. But I take the liberty to to make some remarks about her revolutionary proposal.

Reading her article for the second and third time, I gain the impression that it contains a disproportion between the diagnosis and the medicine.

What does she propose that the Palestinians do?

The first step is clear: break up the Palestinian Authority and return all the organs of Palestinian self-government to the Israeli military governor.

That is simple. But what next?

Diana Buttu voices several general proposals. “Non-violent mass protests,” “boycott, divestment and sanctions,” “addressing the rights of Palestinian refugees” (from the 1948 war) and the “Palestinian citizens of Israel.” She mentions approvingly that already more than a third of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories support a single-state solution — meaning a bi-national state.

With due respect, will these remedies — all together and each one separately — liberate the Palestinian people?

There is no proof that it will.

Experience shows the it is easy for the occupation authorities to turn a “non-violent mass protest” into a very violent one. That happened in both intifadas, and especially in the second. It started with non-violent actions, and then the occupation authorities called in snipers. Within a few days the intifada became violent.

The use of boycotts? There is now in the world a large movement of BDS against Israel. The Israeli government is afraid of it and fights against it with all means, including ridiculous ones. But this fear does not spring from the economic damages this movement can cause, but from the damage it may cause to Israel’s image. Such image may hurt, but it does not kill.

Like many others, Buttu uses here the example of South Africa. This is an imagined example. The world-wide boycott was indeed impressive, but it did not kill the apartheid regime. This is a western illusion, which reflects contempt for the “natives.”

The racist regime in South Africa was not brought down by foreigner, nice as they were, but by those despised “natives.” The blacks started campaigns of armed struggle (yes, the great Nelson Mandela was a “terrorist”) and mass strikes, which brought down the economy. The international boycott played a welcome supporting role.

Buttu has high hopes for “Palestinian boycotts.” Can they really hurt the Israeli economy? One can always bring in a million Chinese workers.

Buttu also mentions the international court in the Hague. The trouble is that Jewish psychology is hardened against “goyish justice.” Aren’t they all anti-Semites? Israel spits on them, as it spit on the UNO resolution at its time.

What is left? There is only one alternative, the one Buttu wisely refrains from mentioning: terrorism.

Many peoples throughout history started wars of liberation, violent struggles against their oppressors. In Israeli jargon that is called “terror.”

Let’s ignore for a moment the ideological aspect and concentrate on the practical aspect only: does one believe that a “terrorist” campaign by the occupied people against the occupying people can, under existing circumstances, succeed?

I doubt it. I doubt it very much. The Israeli security services have shown, until now, considerable ability in fighting against armed resistance.

If so, what remains for the Palestinians to do? In two words: Hold on.

And here there lies the special talent of Mahmous Abbas. He is a great one for holding on. For leading a people that is passing a terrible ordeal, an ordeal of suffering and humiliation, without giving in. Abbas does not give in. If someone will take his place, somewhere in the future, he will not give in either. Not Marwan Barghouti, for example.

As a young man I was a member of the Irgun, the underground military organization. During Workd War II, my company organized a “trial” for Marshal Phillip Petain, who became head the French government after the French collapse. This “government” was located in Vichy and took orders from the German occupation.

Much against my will, I was appointed counsel for the defense. I took the job seriously, and, to my surprise, discovered that Petain had logic on his side. He saved Paris from destruction and made it possible for most of the French people to survive the occupation. When the Nazi empire broke down, France, under Charles de Gaulle, joined the victors.

Of course, Diana Buttu does not refer to this emotion-laden historic example. But one should remember.

A few days before the publication of Buttu’s article, a leader of the Israeli fascist right, Betsalel Smotrich, a deputy chairman of the Knesset, published an ultimatum to the Palestinians.

Smotrich proposed to put the Palestinian before a choice between three possibilities: to leave the country, to live in the country without citizenship rights or to rise up in arms — and then the Israeli army “would know how to deal with them.”

In simple words: the choice is between (a) the mass expulsion of seven million Palestinians from the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), Israel proper and the Gaza Strip, which would amount to Genocide, (b) life as a people of slaves under an Apartheid regime and (c) simple genocide.

The unclear proposal of Buttu constitutes, in practice, the second choice. She mentions that many Palestinians approve of the “one-state solution.” She shies away from a clear-cut statement and hides behind a formula that is becoming fashionable these days: “two-states or one state.” Rather like: “swimming or drowning.”

This is suicide. Dramatic suicide. Glorious suicide. Suicide none the less.

Both Buttu and Smotrich lead to disaster.

After all these years, the only practical solution remains as it was at the beginning: two states for two peoples. Two states that will live side by side in peace, perhaps even in friendship.

There is no other solution.

~ ~ ~

These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.

Repudiamos represión a marcha
de las trabajadoras sexuales

por Polo Ciudadano

El viernes 2 de junio de 2017, durante la conmemoración del Día de las Trabajadoras Sexuales, un grupo de colectivos panameños marcharon para visibilizar los problemas que padece este sector social, en particular, el acoso y la violencia policial de que son víctimas permanentes.

Al presentarse pacíficamente a la sede de la Policía Nacional en Ancón para entregar una carta al respecto, se les dijo que esperaran en la acera que se les iba a atender. En vez de eso, se les envió un contingente exagerado de antimotines que les golpearon y detuvieron.

Trece personas de diversos colectivos fueron detenidas por varias horas, entre ellas: las compañeras Gladys Murillo y Venus Tejada, dirigentes de Mujeres con Dignidad y Derechos, el conocido dirigente del movimiento LGBT Ricardo Beteta, el compañero Eduardo Gil de Convergencia Sindical, la profesora Juana Camargo, Eusebia Solís y Sharon Pringle de Encuentro de Mujeres, Iris Reyes de la Asociación de Estudiantes de Sociología, las compañeras Irina Ceballos, Isabel Guzmán, Maritza Rodríguez, Ovidio Cárdenas y nuestra compañera Patricia Townsend de Polo Ciudadano.

Gracias a la mediación del rector del Universidad de Panamá, Eduardo Flores, y de la Defensoría del Pueblo, finalmente fueron liberadas las 15 personas sin cargos.

Este suceso no es un hecho aislado, sino que hace parte de la creciente represión policial que padecemos en Panamá, y que hace pocos días se ensañó contra cientos de humildes familias precaristas en Arraiján y Pedregal. Es parte de un proceso iniciado hace varios años de militarización creciente de los cuerpos policiales panameños, asesorado desde el Comando Sur de los Estados Unidos, pero cuyo objetivo no es el combate a la delincuencia, sino la represión a las crecientes demandas populares.

Pero tanta represión no expresa fortaleza, sino una debilidad por parte del gobierno del presidente Juan C. Varela, comprobadamente incapaz de resolver el flagelo de la pobreza y desigualdad social, la inseguridad, el deterioro de la educación y la salud públicas, un creciente desprestigio por los casos de corrupción rampante que no solo involucran a funcionarios de anteriores gobiernos, sino también del actual.

Desde el Polo Ciudadano de Panamá reiteramos nuestra solidaridad con las trabajadoras sexuales cotidianamente agredidas por la violencia policial, a la vez que exigimos que la respuesta a los problemas sociales del pueblo panameño no sea la represión, sino la solución a los justos reclamos.

A los colectivos y dirigentes injustamente detenidos les exhortamos a sostener la unidad no solo en esta lucha solidaria con las trabajadoras sexuales, sino a construir juntos un gran movimiento nacional que expulse del poder a los corruptos funcionarios que nos gobiernan al servicio de una oligarquía egoísta y un imperialismo yanqui saqueador.

¡No nos callarán!

~ ~ ~

Estos anuncios son interactivos. Toque en ellos para seguir a las páginas de web

Why you should care about bots
if you care about social justice

by Wilneida Negrón and Morgan Hargrave — Equals Change Blog

Activists rely on the Internet as a tool and space to build movements. But increasingly, forces that we can’t see are shaping these spaces — like algorithms that govern what rises to the top of social media feeds, companies that constantly track us in order to tailor advertising, or political operatives looking to manipulate public opinion. The Internet is a crowded place, and often gamed in ways that put those advocating for greater openness and justice at risk.

As everyone from advertisers to political adversaries jockey for attention, they are increasingly using automated technologies and processes to raise their own voices or drown out others. In fact, 62 percent of all Internet traffic is made up of programs acting on their own to analyze information, find vulnerabilities, or spread messages. Up to 48 million of Twitter’s 320 million users are bots, or applications that perform automated tasks. Some bots post beautiful art from museum collections, while some spread abuse and misinformation instead. Automation itself isn’t cutting edge, but the prevalence and sophistication of how automated tools interact with users is.

Activists and NGOs, politicians, government agencies, and corporations rely on automated tools to carry out all kinds of tasks and operations: NGOs and activists use bots to automate civic engagement — helping citizens register to vote, contact their elected officials, and elevate marginalized voices and issues — to perform operational tasks like fundraising and developing messaging, and to promote transparency and accountability. But they’re far outshone by the private sector’s use of conversational chatbot interfaces — like Amazon’s Alexa or Apple’s Siri — that use these technologies to make their platforms easier to use, gather data on customers, and increase profits.

Politicians, governments, and organizations sometimes use bots to provide public services, like this educational tool on pregnancy and newborn milestones. But they also use them to manipulate public opinion and disable activists. For example, in Mexico, Peñabots were used to support President Enrique Peña Nieto and silence protests against corruption and violence. Activists and journalists in Turkey, Russia, and Venezuela have faced similar efforts meant to marginalize dissenting opinions on social media. In the United States, bot-assisted traffic was used to make stories and misinformation go viral by spreading millions of links to articles on conservative news sites like Breitbart News and InfoWars.

In other cases, bots can be grouped together to create botnets that are used to launch distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks to bring down activist websites and other online communications systems. eQualit.ie, a nonprofit tech organization that protects independent media and human rights organizations from these attacks, documented over 400 recorded DDoS attacks aimed at social justice groups in 2016.

There is a huge opportunity for organizations and activists to use automation in constructive ways that further social justice causes, but doing so is not without risk. What follows is a set of questions aimed at helping advocates better understand the challenges and risks that bots and automated activism present.

Do you rely heavily on social media for your communications, outreach, and engagement work?

If social media is a big part of your organization’s strategy, be vigilant about how automated accounts might disrupt your outreach. At the same time, with the increased presence of bot-generated traffic online, be aware that it will be more and more difficult to tell the difference between engagements with actual constituents, versus bot-generated engagement aimed at confusing or deterring your message and activism.

Is your organization at risk of being targeted due to the nature of your organizing and communications work?

Develop internal policies on how to respond to negative and inflammatory comments online and vigilantly guard your organization’s website and communications. Develop a contingency plan for what to do if your website is hit with a big rush of traffic meant to take it down. Report any attacks to nonprofit tech partners such as eQualit.ie that can track botnet attacks and provide digital security planning recommendations.

What should bots for social justice look like?

There are many ways that bots can promote social justice and lift the voices and work of minorities. To take one example, in situations where releasing critical information to the public might endanger an activist’s life, a bot could be used to release that information instead. Bots could elevate the stories and narratives of groups often marginalized from mainstream public discourse. As automated activism expands and deepens, we need to identify the broader ethical and legal frameworks to guide how automation is integrated into social justice. This means asking questions like: Where do we draw the line between governments’ and politicians’ strategic communications and propaganda? How can we balance the need for security, privacy, freedom of speech, user protections, and preferences in automated online spaces?

How might innovations in automated activism coexist with traditional forms of organizing, messaging, and movement building?

The Internet has already been found to contribute to “slacktivism,” or half-hearted attempts at engagement. If we continue to automate more aspects of our political and civic engagement, we will need more research to determine how automated technology can increase civic engagement, support traditional forms of offline political engagement, and achieve political and social outcomes — rather than commoditizing that work and making some forms of engagement less impactful. Before building the next call-to-action bot, it’s important for technologists to understand what political organizers need to effectively do their work. Social justice advocates and activists should work with well-intentioned technologists and become key partners in identifying and understanding how technology can be useful to building and sustaining movements.

While automation can be used to lower the costs of collective action for social justice activists and organizations, it can also increase risk. It is relatively easy for bots to tear down organizations’ and activists’ discourse, in contrast to the challenges organizations face in defending themselves against those automated attacks. As long as bots continue to participate — at growing rates — in our public sphere without regulation or transparency, they will pose enormous threats to democracy. Every person’s voice — including those expressed online — should count, but that is threatened when automation is used to impersonate a single individual while amplifying his or her voice by the thousands.

Looking critically at your organization’s online strategies will help mitigate and plan for risks. And remembering that automation cannot replace activism, but only complement it, will go a long way toward ensuring the effective use of automated tools as they continue to develop.

(Ford Foundation cc)

~ ~ ~

These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.