Pina Sheli

An artilce on the BBC today about the Israeli supreme court banning the use of people as shields (Israel bans use of human shields) prompted an e-mail to the rc.political listserve which concluded as follows:
I have heard many peers tell me that one can be progressive (in the contemporary political sense of the term) and still be Zionist. I vehemently disagree. My question to you all is: do you think Zionism and Progressive values can be reconciled given the utterly appalling, inhumane and self-righteous ideology at play behind most of Israel's political history?
I find it that the response to an article about the Israeli supreme court ruling that human shields are illegal and against international law (a good call, I would say), is questioning weather Zionism can be progressive, especially today when Bush in considering vetoing a law that would make torture of US detainees illegal. I also continue to dissagree that Zionism is inhernetly anti-progressive.
Zionism is simply the idea of a Jewish homeland somewhere in the region of what is now Israel. When you separate the idea from the actions taken by the movements leaders and now government as a definition of what Zionism is, the inconsistencies with progressive values do become pretty obvious. But, If you take the definition of early 20th century pioneers (i.e. AD Gordon, my personal favorite, or Syrikin or Borochov or even Biolic), or contemporary activist and political groups (ie yachad, New Israel Fund, Habonim Dror, Union of Progrssive Zionists) Zionism becomes pretty damn progressive (especially when you compare their tactics of settling a new homeland to that of the founders of our marvelous USA).
It really is strange to me that in a world of oprresion, injustice, imperialism etc... Israel and Zionism are examined through a finer tooth comb that other developed nations and nationalist movements.
I applaud the Supreme Court on its ruling today and hope it will continue to push Israel in the path of justice.

Coke's deadline to agree in writing to an independent third party audit was September 30. The administration told us they would tell the coalition as soon as they received communication with Coke. On Friday they said no letter had been received. On Sunday we find out they lied, or had just forgotten to check there mailbox that day. Coke had sent a letter; we just couldn’t see it yet. Hmmm, what could be in a letter that arrived on the deadline to agree to an investigation, but an agreement to an investigation? Nothing, we thought. We forgot we were dealing with a tricky, underhanded, (murderous), corporation.

The letter, written by Ed Potter, and addressed to Tim Slottow, the University's CFO, is the most ridiculous example of corporate doublespeak I've ever personally encountered says this: "In response to the first deadline, I wanted to report the progress that has been made in addressing the issues raised by the DRB and also highlight some recent accomplishments".

So, while the DRB set this deadline for Coke to formally agree to an investigation, the actually use it to brag about the youngsters they are helping in Colombia and pretend that they are working with the commission to make a feasible investigation while never actually agreeing to an investigation at all.

At the administration is buying it. The administration actually sees this letter as good faith action.

The coalition has been patient. We were going to wait it out so long as coke stuck to the DRB's recommendation. But they have swayed from the path and now so must we. It is time to elevate the campaign. Coke is in violation of our Vendor Code of Conduct, Coke is not following the recommendation of the DRB, Cokes contracts must be cut. No more games, time for action.

=ilan