SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Groups and individuals targeted by efforts to penalize BDS or to compel people to reject it will now have an important new tool in their legal arsenal as they assert their rights either administratively or judicially.
Israel and its lobby have, for years now, been engaged in a frenzy of activity to further insulate Israel from accountability by using their influence in the West to effectively outlaw organized opposition to Israel. Foremost among these efforts has been the Israeli campaign to penalize calls to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel for its gross violations of human rights. As a result, countless laws and policies are now on the books across the U.S. and the broader West, trampling on core constitutional principles and internationally guaranteed human rights in defense of Israeli impunity. But an advisory opinion issued last month by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) should help to turn that around.
In its historic ruling, the ICJ found that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza is entirely unlawful, that Israel practices apartheid and racial segregation, and that all states are under a duty to help bring this to an end, including by cutting off all economic, trade and investment relations with Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In other words, as a matter of international law, all countries are obliged to participate in an economic boycott of Israel’s activities in the occupied Palestinian territory and to divest from any existing economic relations there.
Because the court was bound by the parameters of the request from the UN General Assembly that triggered its findings, it did not address duties and obligations relating to activities inside the 1948 Green Line. However, the court’s authoritative statement of the requirements of international law makes clear that proponents of BDS have not only the moral high ground but also a firm grounding in international law.
The court’s advisory opinion in July comes on the heels of the commencement of genocide proceedings against Israel in the ICJ last December, and a request in May by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court for arrest warrants for the Israeli Prime Minister and the Defense Minister for crimes against humanity, including extermination. Together, they represent a historic shift away from 76 years of Western-sponsored Israeli exceptionalism and impunity, feeding hope of a new era of accountability.
Recognizing this, Israel, as well as its Western allies accused of complicity in Israel’s international crimes (chief among them, the U.S., UK, and Germany) have been scrambling to oppose, delay, and obstruct action by these courts, both by intervening in court proceedings and, in some cases, by threatening court officials. And indeed, the ICC warrant process has already been inordinately delayed when compared to previous cases. Nevertheless, for its part, the ICJ advisory opinion was both timely and uncompromising in its application of international law to Israel.
Israel and its allies also defensively claim that advisory opinions of the ICJ are “non-binding” and, indeed, the court cannot compel a state to comply with its findings. But what this tactic ignores is that the laws to which the court refers in its authoritative opinion are, in fact, binding on all states. For example, the court observed that the right of the Palestinians to self-determination, their rights under international human rights and humanitarian law, and the prohibition of Israel’s acquisition of territory by force impose so-called “erga omnes” obligations, that is, binding obligations that apply to all countries.
Among these obligations are the duty not to recognize or assist the occupation in any way, and the duty to take action to realize the equal rights and self-determination of the Palestinian people. It follows that any policies or acts by a Western country that in any way recognize Israel’s occupation, assist Israel in that occupation (economically, militarily, diplomatically, etc.), or prohibit persons under its jurisdiction from respecting international law by boycotting or divesting from Israel’s illegal occupation, would be unlawful.
Of course, the U.S., which has long ignored the constraints of international law and invested decades of effort in carving out an exception for Israeli impunity, is likely to reject the court’s findings and oppose the implementing resolution of the UN General Assembly, which is expected to follow. Some other Western states invested in the Israeli axis, like the UK and Germany, may follow suit. But it is likely that most countries, including other Western states, will adjust their policies to ensure legal compliance.
Groups and individuals targeted by efforts to penalize BDS or to compel people to reject it will now have an important new tool in their legal arsenal as they assert their rights either administratively or judicially. They can now invoke the authoritative ruling of the World Court to credibly assert that participating in boycotts, divestment, and sanctions against Israeli occupation, colonization, and apartheid is not only a moral imperative and constitutional and human right, but also an international legal obligation.
CESAR CHAVEZ Movie Trailer (2014)CESAR CHAVEZ Movie Trailer. In theaters April 4th, 2014 Join us on Facebook https://facebook.com/FreshMovieTrailers Directed ...
When Ronald Reagan famously ate grapes on television as governor of California in 1969, he was thumbing his nose at a growing movement for the rights of farmworkers. The grape boycott that Reagan proudly defied put him on the wrong side of history. Today, the leader of that boycott, Cesar Chavez, who died more than 20 years ago at the age of 66, not only has his March 31 birthday commemorated each year, but he now has a feature film dramatizing his life.
The 1960s struggle of migrant farmworkers in California played out alongside many other political movements of the time. Long hours, brutal conditions and lower-than-minimum wages provided the impetus for the great grape strike and boycott, centered in Delano, Calif. The campaign, led by Chavez and Dolores Huerta, the co-founders of the National Farm Workers Association (today known as United Farm Workers of America), lasted more than five years and involved hundreds of miles-long marches, nearly month-long hunger strikes and brutal police violence.
That story and Chavez's central role in it are depicted in a new biopic by Mexican actor and director Diego Luna. The film, named simply "Cesar Chavez," opens in theaters Friday, just days before what would have been the labor organizer's 87th birthday. Starring Michael Pena as Chavez, America Ferrera as Chavez's wife Helen and Rosario Dawson as Huerta, the film is Luna's directorial debut.
Thirty-five-year-old Luna is no stranger to politics and political filmmaking. He has spoken out about Mexico's brutal drug war, lending his support to family members of the war's victims who traveled across the U.S. in a caravan from Mexico. He has also supported drug legalization to undermine cartels. And he co-founded Ambulante, the largest documentary film festival in Mexico, to "support and spread documentary film as a tool of social and cultural transformation."
Best known for his role in Alfonso Cuaron's "Y Tu Mama Tambien," Luna has also appeared in Hollywood films such as "Criminal," "Casa de mi Padre" and most recently "Elysium." In an interview on Uprising, I asked him why, as a Mexican national, he considered the American Chavez an important figure worth making a film about. Luna told me, "It transcends the experience of Mexican-Americans or Latinos here. It's a story about change, about a nonviolent movement, about a beautiful message of being united and finding strength in numbers." Luna believes "it is a story that should be told in this country, but also south of the border, in Latin America."
In only one hour and 40 minutes, Luna weaves a brisk narrative that jumps headfirst into Chavez's efforts to unionize farmworkers in Delano in 1965. The young filmmaker said he was deeply inspired by "how intelligent [the strike organizers] were and how much ahead of their time they were." He marveled at how migrant farmworkers were "a forgotten community, completely ignored, that suddenly said 'Hmmm ... there is a chance for us to connect with consumers. And it's nonviolence that will get us there.' "
Luna imagined the conversations that farmworkers might have had with the public, saying, "I have no bathrooms when I work in the fields; if I miss a day, I lose my job. There's nothing that can assure me I have a job. Every morning I'm in the position of not knowing if I can bring back food to the table. But in the meantime I'm feeding a country!"
Rather than using extras to depict workers, Luna collaborated closely with the UFW to cast actual farmworkers in his film. He explained, "You cannot put makeup on someone and make it look like [a farmworker]. It's easier to tell a farmworker what we do in film than explaining to an extra what it is to be a farmworker."
The result is a portrait of a movement with which no one can remain unsympathetic. Pena's performance as Chavez is nuanced and authentic, showcasing his organizing triumphs as well as his private anguish over his rocky family ties. That Luna chose to explore Chavez's relationship with his wife and older son Fernando is commendable. Most stories depicting larger-than-life male heroes rarely count the high costs of balancing work and family.
The authenticity of the film is also apparent in the many clips of actual black and white news footage Luna inserted seamlessly in between dramatizations. Although an actor plays the role of Bobby Kennedy, Reagan appears as himself, and the result is coherent.
If any aspects of Chavez's story get short shrift in the film, it is his formative years--as this review points out, what is a superhero without an origin story?--as well as the role that Filipino union organizers played in the strike and boycott. Filipino activists in Los Angeles were so upset at the downplaying of union organizer Larry Itliong's role in the film that they even picketed the premiere.
But Chavez's story in the format of an accessible feature film comes at a time when organized labor is attempting to revive itself with high profile efforts at Walmart and in the fast-food industry. It also highlights the importance of the nation's immigrant workforce at a time when immigration reform and the increasing demographic representation of Latinos in the U.S. are hot-button issues. Ironically, Luna's film screened at the White House last week with President Obama--labeled by immigrant rights activists as "Deporter-in-Chief"--giving the opening remarks.
Chavez and the UFW have had a historically complicated relationship with immigration, which Luna chose not to explore in his film. Although the majority of farmworkers they represented were undocumented, Chavez opposed the role that new undocumented immigrants crossing the border played in breaking the UFW's strike, and to that end, he opposed the U.S.' controversial Bracero program for immigrant guest workers. Luna defended Chavez, saying, "From the beginning of the union until today, they represent undocumented workers. It's not about documents or legal status, it's about breaking a strike. They always invited every worker to join the union."
Chavez, who at one time used derogatory terms like "illegals" and "wetbacks," should not be judged by today's standards, Luna asserted. "You have to see things in context," the director said. "The terms he used were the terms everyone used back then." Luna offered an analogy: "I have pictures of my mum smoking while pregnant ... but in the context of the '70s that was fine. Obviously today you and I would never say 'illegals.' " The UFW maintains that "some people falsely claim the UFW is or has been against undocumented workers," and lists on its foundation website the myriad ways in which the union and Chavez have been "longtime champions of immigration reform."
Clearly troubled by Obama's harsh policies on immigration, Luna told me, "I worry a lot about deportations, and I worry a lot about how they are doing them. This is a very big problem ... and it's breaking families." But he maintained it is not enough to simply end deportations. "You have to fix the whole thing," he insisted. "This is a form of slavery and it is something I don't want to be part of. Eleven million people working in this country without having the rights of those who are consuming the fruit of their labor--that can't be called the 'Land of Freedom,' come on! It's just ridiculous."
In explaining to me his thought process, Luna illuminated the shortcomings of film as a medium, saying, "I did a lot of research ... to find out what it is to be a union organizer. I needed to know almost everything to then try to forget it, and then go and do the film I wanted to do. Yes, I got all this information, all these details, I took many notes, I rewrote the script so many times." But, he acknowledged, "you go to shoot and it's not anymore about that because film is not a history lesson. The idea of a film is to entertain."
Luna's "Cesar Chavez" should be seen as an entry point for Americans who know little about him to dig deeper and perhaps discover films such as the 2008 documentary "Viva La Causa: The Story of Cesar Chavez and a Great Movement" or the newly completed documentary "Cesar's Last Fast" by Richard Ray Perez, which debuted at this year's Sundance Festival. Perhaps they may also seek out books such as Jacques Levy's "Cesar Chavez: Autobiography of La Causa" or Miriam Pawel's just-published "The Crusades of Cesar Chavez: a Biography." Even the UFW website is an easily accessible online resource with a wealth of information.
Ultimately, Chavez's story offers prescient lessons for the work that remains to be done today on immigrant and labor rights. Luna distilled it, saying, "As this community [of farmworkers] showed us, it's about organizing. It's about getting together, raising our voice at the same time."