Chuck (and others) state: ”I hope that the authors of this letter will lead by example and to build an independent group that does better.”

One may also reverse the statement, ”I hope that the dissenters to this letter will lead by example and to build an independent group that does better.”

Until recently, ICPJ had a 40+ year record of actively leading the Southwest Michigan peace and justice movement, led in large part by its Middle East Task Force (see 2nd comment below). A survey done by the Structure and Process Committee in the Fall of 2004 identified (by name) a group of 92 core ICPJ activists distributed across the various Task Forces as follows: METF (34), Globalization (19), LATF (14), Crop Walk (10), DWG (8) and REJ (7). These were the people who did the primary “street” work of ICPJ, who defined the image of ICPJ for the greater peace community. These were the volunteer worker bees, people who embodied the core values of ICPJ and were intent on confronting violence and injustice across a broad spectrum. Note that METF led the list, comprising 37% of the total.

Why should 37% the activists be invited to leave? Speaking personally, why should I be asked to leave? I have paid my dues (both literally and figuratively), contributing countless amounts of energy and financial support to ICPJ over a decade and a half. I consider it inappropriate for individuals with limited “peace resumés” to take over my “peace home” and ask me to leave.

Why not ask those who are committed to non-controversial, family-friendly peace fare to form their own organization, perhaps a religiously-oriented version of Michigan Peaceworks? There is certainly room for that on the SE Michigan peace map, and let ICPJ return to what it does best, nonviolent direct action.

Chuck also states, “It is easy to tear down. It is hard to build up.”

No one knows this better than the current leadership of ICPJ.

As an example, we may examine ICPJ’s evisceration of years of excellent work by its own Middle East Task Force.

1) At its April 2006 meeting, the SC voted to suspend the METF for six months, due to the perceived level of verbal violence within METF. (In many minds, this decision was more related to METF’s willingness to confront American Jewish leadership’s influence on US Middle East policy in general and US Israel/Palestine policy in particular—see Mearsheimer & Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy for more detail). This vote on suspension was taken without any advance notification to METF members, nor indeed, notification of the head of METF, Dr. Farouq Shafie. A Muslim and long-term member of the SC, Dr. Shafie resigned in protest. For more details on this situation, please contact me at wthomson@umich.edu.)
2) Subsequently, METF sent four separate letters (4/4/06, 5/2/06, 6/6/06 and 10/3/06 ) to the ICPJ-SC, requesting clarification and discussion of outstanding issues. METF received no response to any of these letters.
3) At that same April 2006 SC meeting, a subcommittee of the SC was formed to look into mediation possibilities. METF indicated an eagerness to work with the SC through mediation, and an SC subcommittee (Bob McMurray, Odile Hugonot Haber, Susan Jacobson, see http://www.icpj.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/mediationsub-committeereport.pdf for their report) and representatives from METF, through many hours of work and negotiation, constructed a process and identified an appropriate mediator (Sheri Wander, a former Executive Director of ICPJ) to proceed toward a productive outcome. At the beginning of her proposal, Sheri stated “Unless ICPJ deals with both the presenting and underlying conflicts and issues of the current situation they can not truly move forward. The issues will continue to surface in the work of ICPJ, the relationships of members, and the relationship of ICPJ to the larger community (see http://www.icpj.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/mediationproposal.pdf for Sheri’s complete proposal).
4) Nevertheless, in conflict with its own purported interest in resolving the perceived problems with METF, at its October 2006 meeting (exactly six months after the “six month” METF suspension), the SC summarily voted to dissolve METF. They also voted not to consider mediation, even though at the 9/28/06 general membership meeting, 65% of the members voted to support the mediation process.

I believe this outcome to have been an egregious violation of trust and dereliction of duty on the part of the leadership of ICPJ, virtually all of whom remain in place today.

I strongly value the core ideals of ICPJ – I just wish the current leadership would live up to them. I believe that ICPJ has a duty to be active, even (or especially), on the difficult issues. As Mohandas Gandhi so eloquently put it, “Without a direct active expression of it, nonviolence, to my mind, is meaningless.”

And as you decide whether or not to contribute to the current incarnation of ICPJ, consider another quote from Mr. Gandhi, “Recall the face of the poorest and most helpless person you have seen and ask yourself if the next step you contemplate is going to be of any use to that person.”

“…everywhere you reach, beyond your own circle, you might find the bleeding agony of Palestine, and the billions of dollars from America, with each of us paying our part of the price for Israeli occupation.”

____________________________

I’m glad Alan didn’t dwell on the ICPJ’s need for money, and how the re-appearance of Palestinian rights advocacy might cut into financial contributions from you-know-who.

A great human rights movement can run on zero money. Enormous civil rights and anti-war marches have happened, without any real money involved.

It is true that ICPJ would miss some checks if it allowed free speech on the Palestine issue.

But ICPJ would get back its old anti-war soul, its old anti-racist heart.

ICPJ could change this City, and maybe the world, by confidently pushing its own resolution to divest from the Israeli military.

ICPJ could show the same confidence in asserting Palestinian human rights, for their own sake, as it has for Latin American farmworkers’ human rights.

I don’t believe Chuck would go against the membership, if the members showed some righteous conviction, some confident affirmation for Palestinian human rights, no matter what the military occupiers might say.

It must be too uncomfortable for ICPJ to side with a military occupation based on race, anyway. It will be a relief for ICPJ to oppose the Israeli occupation, totally, publicly, and honestly.

I have read the letter of criticism from Bill Thomson and co-signers, and the response from Chuck Warpehoski, staff director, below and on the “icpj.org” web site. I would like to share my perspective.

I declined to sign the letter of criticism. though i think most of the criticisms have merit and need attention. The problem in these criticisms is they don’t really get at the problems.

The problem is that the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice has been unable to deal with the question of Palestine, and, related to this 60 year war and more, the questions of Zionism, zionisms, religious nationalisms, anti-semitism, fascism, and the multiple origins of the current impasse.

The Interfaith Council is not unique in this failure, but rather than face difficult questions and polarized perspectives, the organization got itself into a defensive mode, rejected mediation proposals, dissolved its Middle East Task Force, and began to transform itself from a member driven organization to a steering committee board controlled organization.

The by-laws revision developed over some time by a membership committee were jettisoned, in a membership meeting, in favor of a staff proposed alternative, with legal advice, increasing control in the board, and the authority of the director.

I was at the meeting. i saw it done. but not for the first time.

I was also at meetings of the Ann Arbor ad hoc Committee for Peace, now renamed Michigan Peace Works, when i saw the same thing done, membership dissolved and the board put in charge, with the same questions in the background: justice for Palestine involving criticisms of Israel.

I was also part of New Jewish Agenda, years ago when the same word came down from headquarters, don’t talk about cutting aid to Israel, or military aid, or sanctions or divestment, or boycott, or apartheid, or any unpleasant analogies.

I saw and heard the same thing happen in Hillel Foundation, in the 70’s when some independent Hillel directors sought an “alternative,” Briera, and were told from headquarters, follow the line or get out of the organization.

There is an imposed conformity on these questions, and ICPJ has collapsed into it, sadly, needlessly.

Actually there was quite a lot of “progress” in the old Middle East Task Force, clarifying issues and differences, though it certainly was difficult to work in a situation with some people full of contempt, righteous rage and personal disrespectfulness. There was not agreement on tactics. In any case, the difficulties were more than the steering committee wanted to handle, and a defensive approach was adopted. Subsequently, some tentative efforts toward other programing engaging Israel and Palestine has been undertaken, (“Voices on the Wall,” “Dinner and a Movie,”) but not again a membership task force.

Now, there is a protest from past activist members and ex-members, demanding a turnabout. Unfortunately, in my view, the complaint is too focused on the organization manifestations of this accommodation to conformity, (about priorities, diversity, democracy, openness, etc.) and not enough on the real questions behind the scene.

And also unfortunately, in my view, the comprehensive response in defense from staff recounted all the many things we are doing, so busy, keeping on keeping on all our good programs, and open ever to more, and how the staff helps the task forces, and its all volunteer anyway. An excellent statement, except staff response avoided the background questions. And it didn’t touch on the overarching, nagging, pervasive, dispiriting question: yes, we have organization and hard workers, but why, here in Ann Arbor, of all places, is there no movement?

Our town is fractionated into multiple groups, mostly single issue, with little cooperation and interconnection. When there are a thousand reasons from local to global, to be in the streets in outrage, only a few stalwarts maintain a regular protest at the Federal Building. ICPJ, itself, which began the Federal Building vigil on the Tuesday of the Iraq war’s beginning, abandoned it, and does not bring its banners and signs, or even remind the members.

Our task forces operate mostly independently, with little attention to the interconnection of questions and the movement perspective of “one struggle many fronts.”

There is an organization pathology wider than ICPJ and the Middle East. All across the organizations of activism, there is a conservatism, concentrating power, dividing turf, separating issues, hesitancy to cooperate, secrecy, preoccupation with structure.

I see it going on in the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, 50 years older than the Interfaith Council, and also in the New Movement for a Democratic Society, and Foundation for a Democratic Society with which I am associated. The details are different in each case, but I see the same pattern. I venture the supposition that it is happening in other organizations also.

I repeat a tarnished slogan of the 70’s, “Beware the fascist insect that preys upon the spirit of the people.” We all live in the war system gone mad with bloody murder as though it is normalcy. Our political culture is infected, and defensive, careful, unsure how to act, and with whom, watched,
“realistic.” Our organizations have followed suit. which, i think is pretty much across the board in Ann Arbor, for all the good work we all do. I don’t knock the good work; i lament that organization seems to replace community, and caution trumps trust. The spirit is wounded and fearful.

Why don’t people reach out to one another?

Because, (among other reasons) everywhere you reach, beyond your own circle, you might find the bleeding agony of Palestine, and the billions of dollars from America, with each of us paying our part of the price for Israeli occupation. Better keep to ourselves, where it is safe.

Criticism of Israel, in public, cannot be tolerated. Hence discussion, and criticism of Zionism, any zionism, or Israeli Government policy, or Jewish Organization policy, cannot be tolerated. Hence “faith” (like in the Interfaith Council) can’t really touch politics (like in Ann Arbor).

The declaration of anathema and excommunication against “the vigil,” and anyone associated with it, is indicative, using a veil of spiritual sanctity, not to offend the sabbath or place of worship, to avoid the political debate.

The “vigil” in my opinion has not done the great good it claims for itself, nor the great evil its detractors lay to it; I see it more a symptom than a cause of our malaise, where in-your-face-offensiveness takes on a logic of its own in such an offensive reality, thinking of Gaza for a moment.

Insults lead no where, but one is not being a friend of the Jews, or of one’s Jewish friends, or of Israel, by assenting to the silence and quiescence regarding the occupation and treatment of Palestinians. Distress and dissonance in the Jewish community is widespread; the conversations need to be opened.

Some few of us in ICPJ have begun a new group, first called “Israel-Palestine Engage,” now renamed “Common Ground,” to try some new approaches. We formulated a beginning statement “Letter to the Peace Parties,” and held a press conference “Annapolis in Ann Arbor” to show the breathe of commitment in Ann Arbor for a just, comprehensive peace. We did not bring all the parties to the table, even though our letter so advocated. We felt very constrained in our freedom of action in initiating this program, and spent far too much time worrying about what was permitted and who might object to what.

Even in our forthcoming program, “Spiritual Texts, the Heart of Peace,” I feel enjoined not to be political (as though spiritual texts and peace are other than political.)

Much time has been spent on defining and delimiting the mission, and on designing a code of conduct on handling internal criticisms, offensiveness and disruption. Sometimes it seems more time is given such matters than on discussing the difficult questions that prompt the internal dissension, and that characterize the external reality we are trying to address.

It is not just because of Mr. Bush that these are perilous times. The powers-that-be have been hand and glove with the fascist movements, networks and money since the 1920’s, so it is a little late to urge, “its never too soon to be a premature anti-fascist.” The people need ever more to get together. Empire has never been more arrogant. The peoples’ voices need to be ever more international, interfaith, intergenerational, interracial, inviting.

This imperative should be part of our mission. Yet the staff defense seems to absolve itself of more than trying harder, by noting the diversity goal, and failure, of 20 years ago, to reach this objective.

In my view, it is necessary, less to try harder, (everyone is doing as much as they can) than more, to try different. My suggestions are:

1. End the isolation. I suggest all the organizations convene for a “people’s assembly,” a movement conclave, democratic consultation, and start to talk together, to discuss across organization lines. the Interfaith Council and its task forces, Michigan Peace Works, Anti-war Action. People’s Progressive Network, sds/mds, Ann Arbor town meeting, WILPF, Women Progressive Activists, NOW, Ecology Center, social action committees, Grey Panthers, and others who might be interested, within a framework of mutual respect, honesty, and tolerance of differences.

Spend half a day, a long Sunday afternoon, and put it up on community tv and stream on the web, and set a date for a follow up meeting, or assembly, and continue with a party in the evening. get together and get social.

Discuss the questions raised by the critics, and the defenders, and how organizations can better work together, hear and recognize the range of concerns, strategize, tolerate divergent tactics. The objective is to create and support a movement surge of collective outreach and activation.

2. Engage the hard questions. I propose a specific meeting, or meeting series, starting with a first one, on the Middle East, Israel and Palestine in particular, and United States policy, and Ann Arbor policy, All parties invited, to be heard and to listen.

I would like the steering committee, and others, to read, and sign on, or comment upon, the “Letter to the peace parties” which we sent to those convened at Annapolis and released at our press conference, “Annapolis in Ann Arbor.”

I believe there is common ground even among the apparently incompatible and contradictory. The imagination is needed, and also the human capacity to recognize the humanity of the other, and to experience a turning of heart. The parties must be able to see one another. A working group is needed to design a venue that would facilitate non-violent communication and honor appropriate protocols.

Neither “Zionists out of the peace movement” nor “Not in our house do you come” serves seeking such common ground.

We need again to build a “human chain for peace,” one that connects us across town, and within and between our communities. Most we need some positive actions, to help heal the pain, to intersect the politics, and to raise material aid and investment money in the peace, to emulate positive examples, and to be one. Doing something to actually help people can do much to raise the spirit.

There are surely some people committed to the fight for the fight’s sake, or ideologically too pre-determined to see any point of view but their own.
The Interfaith Council should not hold itself hostage to such rudeness.

Most people I know do seek a wider justice and a freer life for all. It should be that we can talk together. How do we help create the culture of peace and non-violence, for the children of the world, that the next generations should not have to learn war any more?

3. Involve the membership. The next annual meeting of the the Interfaith Council should be a top to bottom organization assessment, and beginning shaping of a next 5 year plan, listening to the members for a change, letting the members debate out some of the questions of direction and structure.

Last year i proposed we drop the “special speaker” formate for the annual meeting and let the members discuss what was on their mind about the organization and their work in it. “What do you have to offer?” and “What do you need?” Unfortunately, this good intention got homogenized into too short discussion circles, and truncated report backs with little back and forth and no plan of follow up.

I know criticism makes one defensive, it does me; it is also opportunity for improvement and change. I would prefer to hear the steering committee and staff respond to the letter of criticism by saying : “You raise many distressing points, which deserve serious consideration, and we will call a special membership meeting to discuss and debate the questions raised, and to clarify any questions that should be put to the members and constituencies of the Interfaith Council for votes and advisory opinions.”

Thank you for considering this perspective. Interfaith Council could play an important role in Ann Arbor, in reenergizing political movement
and broadening engagement for a just peace and understanding between and among Jews and Palestinians and Arabs and Moslems and Christians and peace and justice advocates generally.

I wish it would

Alan Haber

I, too, am confused by the “tearing down” of ICPJ that is being done by good people who care passionately about peace and justice in the middle east. I would want their energy to go toward working on those issues instead of tearing down organizations with whom they have become disaffected. If ICPJ is no longer meeting a particular person’s or group’s vision or way of organizing on an issue, then they should move on. But to take so much time and energy to publicly defame ICPJ seems seriously misplaced.

It is not a choice which UN resolution to accept and which one to reject. It is also not a business of some Americans to demand for the Palestinians what they don’t want to demand for themselves at this point for various reasons.

If most of the palestinians in Palestine want the 2 states solusion at this point (including Hamas with the “hudna”) who are you to fight against them and for what they don’t want?

they want peace at this point but you want them to fight. Maybe you are not doing them a big favor at all.

As time went on, the steering committee began policing the METF and limiting what we could do without offering any real leadership around this issue.

It has been said over and over by many leaders and people familiar with the Middle East that the Israeli-Palestine (Israel-Lebanon should be included) issue is the most explosive in that area and the human rights abuses heaped on the Palestinians and the flagrant violation of international law by Israel is increasing the unrest in the area.

Surely this is a most urgent issue, and overly careful and cautious steps do not indicate a dedication to bringing justice to this area. I agree with the others. I think this is a phony “peace and justice” organization.

Shirley Zempel

Without a doubt, it is extremely challenging work. We continue to learn and to strive to do better at it, because we know it is essential. Any true and lasting peace will require that Muslims, Jews, Christians, and Arabs find ways to work together, respect differences, and find common ground. That is the only path to creating a shared peace, and we are doing our best to be some small part of making that happen.

ICPJ seems to have built in strong safeguards against any demand for action against the Israeli government.

Specifically, ICPJ speaks openly against “human rights abuses” by the governments of Colombia, Bolivia, and Mexico, and lobbies to stop them.

Why, in contrast, does ICPJ seek only to bring “together a broad variety of Palestinian, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and Israeli perspectives to hear each other” on the carefully limited topic of a certain Wall which Israel is building?

After so many years of education (not action), ICPJ seems to be saying that any action against Israel still remains unthinkable, that we still must limit ourselves to the stage of bringing Israelis and non-Israelis together for non-judgmental rap sessions about the Wall, and only the Wall. Even the Wall itself is not characterized as anything negative, nor as requiring any action by ICPJ against Israel.

It is quite clear the number of Muslims, Arabs, and specifically Palestinians which ICPJ can recruit in that fashion: zero. Is ICPJ comfortable with having no audible presence by Palestinians in its ranks?

The new President of ICPJ believes that Israel has a right to exist AS A JEWISH STATE in Palestine, a belief which is contrary to a just and lasting peace for Jews and Palestinians.

And the Steering Committee, rather than warmly hold accountable its Jewish members so that they may see the error of their ways, has taken the side of the oppressors in Palestine.

This lack of responsibility shown by ICPJ exposes the organization which is primarily interested in fund raising and its self promoted interests.

The Middle East Task Force recognized that Zionist ideology was at the root of the Conflict, and was summarily dismissed by ICPJ for its efforts.

Peace is not easy; and it certainly is not about lighting candles when a genocide is occurring under our watch.

Please withhold your contributions until this critical issue is addressed.