We came across this through Clifford Lazar’s site. It seems that http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/bulletin19.html (MoveOn.org official bulletin by Noah Winer) turned out to be so embarrasing to MoveOn.org that MoveOn.org took it down. Thanks to web.archive.org, however, we can present our readers with highlights of MoveOn.org’s official position (they can’t blame this one on the Action Forum) about the Palestinians and Israel.

MoveOn Bulletin
Friday, June 20, 2003
Noah T. Winer, Editor
noah.winer “at” moveon.org

Subscribe online at:
http://www.moveon.org/ moveonbulletin/

——————————

NOTE: In response to feedback about this bulletin, MoveOn.org would like to clarify that The MoveOn Bulletin is a free weekly collection of links, which represent a broad range of views on important political issues. These links aren’t meant to represent the position of MoveOn.org.

We beg to differ. Noah T. Winer is the editor of this bulletin and, as an official representative of MoveOn.org, he is entirely responsible for the content of the page. By posting the indicated links in the context of advocacy as opposed to condemnation, he, and therefore MoveOn.org, are indeed endorsing the indicated positions. In addition, it already seems that MoveOn.org was getting heat over this from pro-Israel people, and the above paragraph shows exactly why MoveOn.org felt compelled to take the bulletin offline. After recovering the material from archive.org, we are hardly surprised. It begins by blaming Israel for breaking off the peace talks:

INTRODUCTION: WHERE DOES THE ROAD MAP LEAD?
In July, 2000 Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak broke off talks with Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat at the Camp David summit hosted by U.S. President Bill Clinton. That September, Ariel Sharon, chairman of the Likud party, made a provocative visit to the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Control over this holy site for both Muslims and Jews is contested by Palestinians and Israelis. The visit implied Israeli sovereignty over all Jerusalem, the eastern portion of which is considered occupied territory by the international community. So began the second intifada, or Palestinian uprising.

As in the first intifada in the late 1980s, the demand is for an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem — which has persisted since 1967 — and acknowledgment of the Palestinian refugees right to return to the villages from which they were forced to leave during the 1948 war that established the State of Israel. In the 33 months since, human death has saturated the region: 816 Israelis and 2,384 Palestinians have been killed.

Early in his presidency, George W. Bush avoided substantial involvement in the Israel-Palestine conflict. After September 11, 2001 a number of factors — escalating violence in the area and Israel’s attempt to link September 11th with Palestinian suicide bombings, pressure from the Israel lobby and the Christian Right, and the desire for an increasing U.S. influence in the oil-rich Middle East — prompted Bush to take an active, personal role in promoting an agreement.

That proposed agreement is the Road Map. While the initiative has been praised for calling for an end to violence and for endorsing the formation a Palestinian state, the Road Map provides no mechanism for actually ending the violence, leaves uncertain the borders of the proposed state, and postpones determining the status of the 380,000 Israeli settlers and four million Palestinian refugees. With matters so central to the resolution of the conflict left to be decided at a future date or ignored entirely, the Road Map is still far from being a bona fide peace proposal.

True and lasting peace begins with justice for all the people of the region. That the Road Map will lead in that direction is not at all evident.

CRITIQUE
From the only joint Palestinian-Israeli public policy think-tank in the world:
“The Road Map is severely lacking in detail. It mentions that the sides will have to negotiate the permanent status issues such as borders, Jerusalem, settlements, refugees, etc. but makes almost no mention of these issues throughout the process in the earlier phases.”
http://www.ipcri.org/files/roadmapgb.html

From the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz:
“According to the facts on the ground, the [Palestinian] ’state’ will apparently be comprised of three enclaves cut off from one another inside the West Bank — in addition to the Gazan enclave, and with no guarantee the settlements inside the enclave will be dismantled. The ’separation fence’ has been described as ‘temporary,’ but it is a wall with hefty fortifications taking up a lot of land, and it has already scarred the Tul Karm-Qalqiliyah area, the most prosperous Palestinian farmland, thus sabotaging one of the cornerstones of Palestinian economic security.”
http://www.moveon.org/r?456

From The Nation:
“For in failing to focus on the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, about to enter its 37th year, and on Israeli settlements, which underpin that occupation, the Road Map misses an opportunity to end this conflict. Instead, it concentrates on Palestinian violence and how to combat it — as if it came out of nowhere, and as if, were it to be halted, the situation of occupation and settlement would be normal.”
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030609&s=khalidi

From the Nation: “Blame the Jooooooooooooooz.”

FACTS ON THE GROUND: TERRORISM
Human Rights Watch condemns suicide bombing attacks against Israeli civilians as war crimes and crimes against humanity.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/

Gush Shalom, an Israeli peace group, on the Rantisi assassination attempt.
http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/article254.html

An Israeli parliament member and 25 former Israeli generals have raised questions about the timing of Sharon’s assassination attempt.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0612-05.htm

Senator Dick Lugar (R-Indiana), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has raised the possibility of U.S. military intervention “to root out the terrorism that is at the heart of the problem.”
http://www.moveon.org/r?453

Quoting Gush Shalom, are we? Let’s digress a bit and show what Gush Shalom supports:

Aims of Gush Shalom

The primary aim of Gush Shalom is to influence Israeli public opinion and lead it towards peace and conciliation with the Palestinian people, based on the following principles:

Putting an end to the occupation,

Accepting the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent and sovereign State of Palestine in all the territories occupied by Israel in 1967,

...Establishing Jerusalem as the capital of the two states, with East Jerusalem (including the Haram al-Sharif) serving as the capital of Palestine and West Jerusalem (including the Western Wall) serving as the capital of Israel. T

…Recognizing in principle the Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees, allowing each refugee to choose freely between compensation and repatriation to Palestine and Israel, and fixing by mutual agreement the number of refugees who will be able to return to Israel in annual quotas, without undermining the foundations of Israel.

The above is the position of the source that MoveOn.org is promoting, and that of Electronic Intifada (see below) is even worse. Now we return to MoveOn.org’s official bulletin by Noah T. Winer.

FACTS ON THE GROUND: OUTPOSTS AND SETTLEMENTS
From the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz:
“Don’t make do with the outposts. There are more than 100 of them, and about 60 went up in Sharon’s days. If he takes down 7-10 he hasn’t done a thing. Many were put up just to pull them out, like a goat from a crowded corral.”
http://www.moveon.org/r?454

From The Nation:
“A recent poll by Israel’s Jaffee Institute for Strategic Studies shows that 56 percent of Israelis — up from 48 percent last year — would ’support a unilateral withdrawal from the territories in the context of a peace accord, even if that meant ceding all settlements.’ Here is the signpost for a realistic road map that could be charted by the Bush Administration.”
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030630&s=carey

This is the “realistic road map” that MoveOn.org seems to support.

FACTS ON THE GROUND: THE SEPARATION WALL
Gush Shalom reports that the separation wall Israel is constructing in the West Bank is not at all along the internationally recognized 1967 “green line” border. The wall, officially being built for security, annexes illegal settlements into Israel.
http://www.gush-shalom.org/thewall/

A troubling report on the 25-foot tall separation wall from Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot describes how the system of barbed concrete walls and armed watchtowers will imprison hundreds of thousands of Palestinians without access to their agricultural lands.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1546.shtml

The Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment on legal efforts to block the wall.
http://www.lawsociety.org/Press/Preleases/2002/oct/oct15e.html

Res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself. In the above MoveOn.org bulletin, edited by Noah T. Winer, MoveOn.org endorses the following positions:
(1) Israel is responsible for breaking off the peace talks
(2) The “occupation” is responsible for the Palestinians’ violent behavioral choices
(3) The security wall is bad and “imprisons” Palestinians
(4) Israel should cede the settlements unilaterally
(5) The Palestinians have a “right of return”
(6) MoveOn.org promotes positions taken by Gush Shalom and the Electronic Intifada (the same organization that accused Israel of “murdering” Rachel Corrie)

This is hardly inconsistent with Mr. Winer’s bulletin that accuses “Zionists” of divided loyalties–a smear also quite common on MoveOn’s disgraced Action Forum–while citing a known anti-Semitic source (Christison).

PAX ISRAELICA?
Nearly all PNAC participants, whether Jewish or Christian, are right-wing Zionists who support Ariel Sharon’s Likud Party. In 1996, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and others drafted a paper for incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urging him to make “a clean break” from the Oslo peace process preferring “peace through strength,” including the ouster of Saddam Hussein.
http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm

This essay describes many of the familiar neo-conservatives as having “dual loyalties,” making policy decisions in the interests of the State of Israel as much as the United States.
http://www.counterpunch.org/christison1213.html

Res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself.

MoveOn Bulletin
Wednesday, October 16, 2002
Editor: Susan Thompson, susan.thompson "at" moveon.org
Editorial Assistant: Leah Appet, leah "at" moveon.org

Subscribe online at:
http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/

 
CONTENTS:

1. Introduction: Saying No to War, Drafted or Otherwise
2. One Link: All About Conscientious Objection
3. Conscientious Objection and the Draft
4. Conscientious Objection and Taxes
5. Conscientious Objection, the "War on Terrorism", and Iraq
6. Conscientious Objection in the Past: Some Examples
7. Actions, Organizations, and Links
8. About the MoveOn bulletin and MoveOn.org

 
INTRODUCTION: SAYING NO TO WAR, DRAFTED OR OTHERWISE
Our readers may already be wondering why we've chosen to spend a bulletin on the topic of conscientious objection when US citizens aren't facing a draft.

It is important to remember that conscientious objection does not only affect draftees -- it affects anyone who is considering or is currently involved in military service. And it's more about determining one's personal beliefs and opinions that it is about legally qualifying as an objector.

But while we are not currently facing a draft, it is not outside of the realm of possibility. In every war since Vietnam, the US has managed to conduct military operations using the resources of the volunteer-based military alone. The campaign against Iraq may buck that trend. According to plans leaked to the New York Times, it's likely that after a war the US will occupy Iraq and put a military government in control for five years or more. And US military personnel remain engaged in operations around the globe, from the Philippines to Georgia. As the armed forces are stretched thinner, the likelihood of needing to find the personnel to supplement them increases.

Some leaders are calling for a draft for reasons other than personnel shortages. They believe that the change to an all-volunteer army has contributed to a generation of young Americans with no sense of duty or obligation to their country. A draft would supposedly correct this problem, while also helping to increase safety and security at home.

Democrat Charles Rangel is foremost among the advocates of a draft.

In fact, after years without any legislation on the subject, a new bill was introduced last year that would reinstitute the draft.

Probably by Democrat Charles Rangel.

It continues to languish in the House, but the possibility remains that the bill could be given more serious consideration if a need arises for replacement troops -- or if the idea of making young Americans more patriotic by enlisting them gathers more support. 18-year-old men are still required to register (in many states, they can't receive their driver's license unless they do so), meaning that it would take little time to begin calling people up for a draft once Congress approved it.

A new draft remains unlikely for the moment -- but is not nearly as far-fetched as we may wish. What does this all mean to the person who opposes war? Ultimately, it means that it is still important to understand what conscientious objection means, and how to legally qualify to become one of the two federally recognized types of conscientious objector. And it means giving some serious consideration to your own beliefs and principles as they relate to war and peace. Although the term "conscientious objection" can certainly be limited to the legal meaning of refusing to participate in some or all military service because of religious or moral objections to killing others, at heart conscientious objection is simply opposition to war. Asking "am I a conscientious objector?" means reviewing the moral, spiritual, political, and personal beliefs that help you determine the code of conduct for your own life and balancing a love of, or devotion to, the principles of your country versus other principles that guide you.

This is why we believe that learning about conscientious objection is important whether or not a new draft is instituted. Whether legally recorded or not, the root of the matter remains the same -- determining one's beliefs about war and peace. It is an essential part of any antiwar action.

...

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION AND TAXES
The Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Bill was introduced into the House in 2001. It would ensure that conscientious objectors could pay taxes to a Peace Tax Fund, and thus still pay taxes without supporting the military.
http://www.umc-gbcs.org/advact97.htm

Rather than waiting until this or another bill is passed, some people still refuse to pay part or all of their taxes as a form of protest and civil disobedience. Different methods carry varying degrees of risk, but for a person of conscience, this risk may be a reasonable alternative to funding a war effort that is killing people.
http://www.nonviolence.org/issues/taxes.htm

You may also consider contributing to the War Tax Resisters Penalty Fund, which helps pay the taxes of American conscientious objectors who are being prosecuted for war tax resistance. This action carries much less personal risk and still expresses a financial objection to the war effort.
http://www.nonviolence.org/archivedsites/resource/wtrpf.htm

A group of Quakers in New York and Connecticut has set up an escrow account where you can send the "military portion" of your federal taxes as a form of civil disobedience. The funds are returned if the IRS levies them from other assets. They are considered to be taxes paid on time and in good faith, even if this is not recognized by the US government.
http://w3.execnet.com/elkins/peace_tax_escrow_account.htm

Take a quick look at war tax resistance over the last 30 years as told through pictures:
http://www.warresisters.org/nva0301-6.htm

 
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION, THE WAR ON TERRORISM, AND IRAQ
Who is opposing war on Iraq? This article provides an overview of recent polls that show how support for the war is plummeting, and also that the core supporters of war on Iraq are rural, white, male, southern Republicans without a college diploma.
http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/18/judis-j.html

For many of the 133 House members and 23 senators who voted against war powers for Bush last week, their vote was a vote of conscience.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1011-02.htm

Would those who support war on Iraq still do so if it meant enlisting, or a draft? Or do most of the people calling for a war on Iraq want "war on the cheap?" While this article sometimes reads more like a call to enlist to protect the country than an anti-war statement, it still offers a compelling argument that "[b]eing unwilling to offer our flesh and blood is tantamount to confessing that overtaking Iraq has nothing to do with democracy or freedom."
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1008-01.htm

Whether or not there is a new draft, those people currently enlisted in the military also have the option to reconsider their service and become conscientious objectors. David Wiggins of Alternet calls on all US soldiers to resist and refuse to attack Iraq.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14289

In 2001, the Pentagon denied that a new draft was being considered to help supply troops to the "war on terrorism." Senior officials noted that no draft has been needed to help fight any war since the volunteer system has been introduced, even the first Gulf War. However, some analysts noted that a draft could still be more likely now than in the past, especially as the war on terrorism increases in scope and length, since draftees would then be needed to "fill personnel gaps."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25170

Others have argued that a new type of draft needs to be instituted to train people to protect America from terrorist threats at home.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0111.moskos.glastris.html

"After September 11th, the only thing likely to happen is that which was previously inconceivable. Could war in Iraq bring terrorism back to our country? Could it lead to a regional conflagration in the Middle East? Could it lead to another draft?" According to the author of this article, the answer is very possibly yes to all of these questions. In fact, on Dec. 20 of 2001, a bill was introduced to the House which calls for the drafting of all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 22 for military service.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=8136

HR 3598 The Universal Training and Service Act has been introduced but is not currently moving through Congress. It is unlikely that it will be passed in its current form. However, the fact that it has been introduced leaves room for a less extreme version to possibly be passed, meaning that the end result of the bill could still be conscription. This page includes information on the key points of the bill and who to write in order to oppose it.
http://www.afsc.org/youthmil/200202/notdraft.htm

Meanwhile, in April of this year, Rep. Ron Paul introduced a bill in the House to eliminate the Selective Service System and the Selective Service Act.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22629

ACTIONS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND LINKS
The Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors.
http://www.objector.org/

Center on Conscience and War.
http://www.nisbco.org/

Peace Taxpayers is a site meant to provide information, resources, support, and actions geared towards conscientious objection through not paying taxes.
http://www.peacetax.org/welcome.htm

The National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund is an organization devoted to supporting and instituting legislation that allows people to withhold part of their taxes as a form of conscientious objection.
http://www.peacetaxfund.org/

Links for Military Conscientious Objectors. List of organizations that offer counseling to military personnel seeking a discharge.
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/3899/links.html

This is a list of links to programs around the world that aid conscientious objectors. It also includes a brief list of articles related to conscientious objection.
http://www.afsc.org/pindx/cos.htm

 
ABOUT THE MOVEON BULLETIN AND MOVEON.ORG
The MoveOn Bulletin is a free, biweekly email bulletin providing information, resources, news, and action ideas on important political issues. The full text of the MoveOn Bulletin is online at http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/; you can subscribe to it at that address. The MoveOn Bulletin is a project of MoveOn.org.

MoveOn.org does not necessarily endorse the views espoused on the pages that we link to, nor do we vouch for their accuracy. Read them at your own risk.

This is unmitigated garbage. MoveOn.org presents the indicated material in the context of endorsement and promotion, so MoveOn is obviously endorsing the viewpoints. The authors, in fact, say, "...we believe that learning about conscientious objection is important whether or not a new draft is instituted."