TTIP and TTP: Congress does it again!

Posted by on

A follow-on from the previous post: Congress has used trade negotiations to solidify Israeli control over Palestinian lands.

Boycotts are a constitutionally protected form of free speech, and action to prevent them could be unconstitutional. In any event this legislation puts a chilling effect on efforts in the EU to uphold international law by boycotting products produced in illegally occupied territory. Whether you are a supporter of Israel or not, no one should have the right to deprive those who want a peaceful settlement from continuing the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, which seeks to persuade Israel to conform with international law and human rights. I personally doubt the efficacy of the BDS movement, but support the right of those who believe in it to continue it. By facilitating Israel’s impunity in dispossessing the Palestinians, Congress inflames an already volatile situation that contributes to the despair and turmoil in the Middle East. Those who support the efforts of liberal Jews, growing daily in number, ito counter the policies of the Israeli government do so because they want Israel to thrive and to live in peace, and they oppose the views of religious extremists in Israel on the grounds that they endanger the very future of the country.

Legitimizing Settlements: The legislation includes language that legitimizes the settlements by including “territory controlled by Israel” as well as Israel ‘proper’ — part of an ongoing attempt to erase the Green Line. This language will legislate support for Greater Israel, countering official US policy of opposing the settlements.

The hypocrisy of all this is that the bill urges negotiators to make support for human rights another principal objective of trade talks!
(I owe these two posts to Jewish Voice for Peace, one of several liberal Jewish organisations that struggle to achieve a civilised resolution to the Palestinian situation.

TTIP and TTP: new news

Posted by on

Jewish Voice For Peace is an American liberal, Jewish organisation whose membership is mostly young. I happen to be a member. JVP reports that Congressional leaders are quietly pushing through fast-track legislation for the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) trade agreements currently being negotiated in secrecy and opposed by labor and environmental groups. Congress has added amendments to the legislation that would discourage and penalize boycotts against Israel and, more importantly, erase the distinction between Israel and the Palestinian territories it occupies, thus apparently recognizing in an international treaty the incorporation of the West Bank into Israel. Amendments passed last week to the ‘Fast Track’ call for US negotiators to make it illegal for organizations to continue human rights boycotts and divestment campaigns against Israel. This is now one of the “principal U.S trade negotiating objectives” and has been vigorously promoted by AIPAC.

On Wednesday April 22, the Senate Finance Committee passed the Cardin amendment to the Trade Promotion Authority S. 995 which incorporates the language of a previously introduced bill (The US-Israel Trade Enhancement Act of 2015 S.619). On Thursday April 23, the House Ways and Means Committee incorporated similar language into its version of
the Fast-Track bill based on the previously introduced bill (The US-Israel Trade and Commercial Enhancement Act H.R. 825). Both amendments are to the “Fast Track” Trade Promotion Authority legislation that will strip Congress of the ability to amend “trade” legislation.

See the following post for an explanation of why this yet another damaging aspect of TTP and TTIP.

Ethics and religion

Posted by on

By confusing ethics with religion society has made a significant shift away from healthy ethics and common sense, and put aside natural philosophy in favor of supernatural credulity. To be good is to believe, not necessarily to be sane or healthy.

Gay marriage

Posted by on

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on same-sex marriage, which is now legal in about three dozen states. But it’s also legal in most states to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the areas of employment, housing and public accommodation. So, an LGBT person can get legally married in most states, but then be evicted from an apartment and denied a home loan. Gay-rights activists are urging state lawmakers to change anti-discrimination laws — which already include things such as race, age, religion and disability — to include LGBT people. Religious groups opposed to gay marriage, on the other hand, argue that the public accommodation element would unfairly require business owners to serve same-sex couples, even if they have a moral or religious objection. Should you as a society force them to do that out of principle? (precis of an NPR item May, 2015)

Everyone, regardless, should be covered by the anti-discrimination laws. This shouldnn’t even need to be debated; it is just that the law hasn’t caught up with public opinion. Gay couples should enjoy the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.

I personally don’t object to the use of the word “marriage” for gay couples if that produces a happier and more pleasant life for them (basic Epicureanism), as opposed to using the term “civil union” which should in any case entail all the legal priviledges of marriage. There is insufficient love in the world as it is. But I respect the point of view that says that the word “marriage”, introduced as a sacrament by the Christian church in 1184, is freighted with tradition and religious and reproductive significance and changing the meaning can make even liberal and open-minded people uncomfortable. If the Supreme Court rules against extending the term “marriage” to LGBT couples, it may be that it was “too far, too quickly”. Moral: bide your time, do what’s practical, i.e. extend the legal priviledges first, and don’t provoke excessive push-back.

Telephones: no longer used for talking?

Posted by on

One of the ironies of modern life is that while smartphone sales have soared, we talk less and less by phone. Phone calls are nowadays largely the preserve of the political fundraiser, or the family emergency. What people dislike is the expectation “of your immediate attention, paying no heed to the possibility that you may be busy doing something else”. Voicemails are worse: invariably mumbled and rambling. An estimated 100 billion business emails are sent each day – wasting 37% of the average professional’s working week, which shows just how little people want to use the phone. We will do anything to avoid it”. (Sathnam Sanghera, The Times, London)

In America the majority of phone calls are either for political fundraising, or from that Indian crowd, purporting to work for Microsoft and wanting access to your computer (“Not again”, I told them yesterday. “You were supposed to have been through my files and stolen my passwords last week”). So if you don’t talk to your friends on the phone, except to announce that you’ll be ten minutes late, then you are reduced to texting (you can’t maintain a friendship texting), or meeting in restaurants where the noise is so great that you can barely hear a word. This is tough on Epicureans, who place such high value on friendship ( and good food). How about a nice, gentle walk in the countryside and a meaningful conversation?

I don’t have a modern cellphone; I regard this odd fact as Epicurean. I would be looking at it every five minutes. I do make my own greeting cards and send seasonal greetings and thank you’s on them. Sounds anti-deluvian, doesn’t it? I do it because I enjoy doing it, along with a nice, gentle walk in the countryside and a meaningful conversation.