Greens revisit divestment

By Deborah Moon Seldner

At least four proposals regarding last year's national Green Party Resolution 190 calling for divestment in Israel will be on the agenda when the Pacific Green Party of Oregon holds its nominating convention June 17 in Portland.
Four proposals have been posted on the state party's Web site www.pacificgreens.org, with a note that other proposals will be posted as they are received. One posted proposal calls for a rescission of the divestment resolution, two are compromise proposals and one calls on the state party to reaffirm resolution 190. If a rescission or compromise resolution passes at the state level, it will be referred to the Green Party national convention in Tucson, Ariz., July 17-25.
The proposal to rescind 190 is co-sponsored by Allen Drescher and Gary Acheatel, whose attempts to overturn Resolution 190 have been reported in the Jewish Review Jan. 15 and March 1 editions. That proposal also calls on the U.S. Green Party to adopt the six principles of the Jewish Arab Muslim Dialogue as its position on the Arab-Israeli conflict (see list following story).?
Acheatel said he learned about the JAMD principles in an April 1 Jewish Review article by Editor Paul Haist about a Presbyterian forum on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
"My reading of that article drew my attention and awareness that such a dialogue group exists in Portland," said Acheatel. "No one in the Green Party knew such dialogue groups exist. ? Those six principles have become a key counterpoint to 190 in the Green Party."
Acheatel said he obtained the six principles from Aaron Vitells, a Jewish Israeli who lives in Portland and who co-authored the principles with Frank Afranji, a Muslim Palestinian long active in the Portland area on behalf of the Palestinian cause. The two developed the principles at the request of JAMD, which has since adopted the document.
The six principles are also the core of a compromise proposal co-sponsored by Drescher and George Hutchinson, a member of the PGP coordinating committee. That proposal "recommends that the USGP adopt the six principles as its position on the Arab-Israeli conflict and suspend USGP Resolution 190 for one year, giving the Israeli Government adequate time to meaningfully implement" the principles.
"Gary's proposal is the one I like and the one with George is the one I could live with," said Drescher, a Green Party member and a lawyer in Ashland. "In politics, you have to live with compromises."
Drescher said that Hutchinson had been a big proponent of 190.
"In one-on-one conversations with George Hutchinson, he being a reasonable man, understood if you take all sides into consideration, you reach a more balanced conclusion," said Drescher.
"If you only hear one side of an argument, it's understandable you will take action based on that one side," said Drescher, noting that was the case when Resolution 190 passed last year. "So Gary (Acheatel) and I have tried to present information from the other side."
The second compromise proposal posted on the Pacific Green Party Web site endorses a substitute for 190 that still calls for divestment from Israel but also includes divestment from the Palestinian government. The proposal, presented by Erik Douglas, lists a variety of ways to end the boycott including the Israeli and Palestinian Green Parties dialoguing with the U.S. Green Party "towards an alternative and better resolution."
Douglas's proposal also notes that there are "many other nations around the planet which warrant similar resolutions in light of the gross human rights abuses and other problems endemic in them?"
For complete texts of the four proposals, visit www.pacificgreens.org and click on "read the rest" under the headline "June 17 Nominating Convention in Portland."

Jewish Arab Muslim Dialog
PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST: DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES
1. End of conflict. A peace agreement between the two sides must result in an end to hostilities and initiate a process of reconciliation, with the objective of the elimination of all outstanding claims by one people against the other.
2. Two states. The only reasonable and practical resolution to the conflict is two viable and sovereign states for the two independent and free peoples; to enable each state to reflect the unique culture and aspirations of its people, ensuring that Israel remains a predominantly Jewish state and Palestine remains predominantly an Arab state.
3. Borders. The borders separating the two states should in general be the borders of June 4th, 1967, but the negotiation of trades of comparable land on a 1:1 ratio could facilitate more cohesive populations.
4. Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the capital city of the state of Israel. At the same time, it is the true aspiration of the Palestinian people that Jerusalem be the capital city of their state. Therefore, West Jerusalem (including the Jewish Quarter of the Old City) should remain the capital of Israel, and East Jerusalem would become the capital of the Palestinian state. The border between the two capitals should be determined by the above-mentioned principles; however, the entire city should be open to both peoples.
5. The Temple Mount—Haram al sharif. There is no current agreement about the sovereignty of this site, which is holy to both the Jewish and the Muslim religions. Therefore, the most practical solution is to defer the question for an extended period of time and to continue with the arrangements that have been in effect since 1967.
6. Refugees. One of the most tragic results of the long dispute between the Jewish and the Palestinian peoples was the creation of a large number of Palestinian refugees. Their pain and aspirations must be acknowledged. At the same time, the historic and religious connection of the Jewish people to the land must also be recognized. True reconciliation requires that a compromise, as painful as it might be, must be struck. Given the premise that one state should not impose rules on the other, and that a distinct majority is in each people's interest, the reasonable and practical solution is that the Palestinian refugees will find new homes in the Palestinian state. Family reunification should be given special consideration, and proper monetary compensation for displaced people will have to be negotiated.