[Peace-discuss] AWARE "disrespectful to...
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at uiuc.edu
Tue Jul 10 13:50:30 CDT 2007
As the dissenting member subject to disrespectful and personal attacks,
I want to assure everyone that I bear no ill-will... --CGE
Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> Thanks for the update and clarification, Jan. I haven't attended
> meetings in years so was reacting to recent postings to the list (re the
> flyer-in-question and other-wise), AND remembering unfortunate aftermath
> of Obama's visit a couple of years ago when we lost ground w/ a key
> member of the African American community, and objections voiced w/in the
> group were countered w/ disrespectful and personal attacks twds one
> dissenting member, which resulted in loss of key member(s) of AWARE.
>
> I agree that members will have- and express their differences...
> however, while dissent will be certainly be present from time to time,
> disrespect should not be tolerated at any time.
>
> And perhaps -- although you (and most members?) feel the present system
> is working well -- others might weigh in on the guidelines and
> timelines, including when AWARE's name vs AWARE's name w/ disclaimer
> should be used?
>
> Jenifer
>
>
>
> */Jan & Durl Kruse <jandurl at insightbb.com>/* wrote:
>
> Many months ago AWARE established a set of guidelines, which to date
> has been used as needed. For the past many months AWARE has peacefully
> gone about its work. Infighting in recent meetings has been
> non-existent. Those present at Sunday meetings know this from first
> hand experience. But now a difference has arisen. Those who attended
> this past Sunday will probably recall (and we'll hope the posted
> minutes will reflect) that we have already dealt with the current flyer
> issue. We (those present) reminded ourselves that if we do not have
> the required and agreed upon 90 percent consensus for a flyer, then
> that flyer will have the prior agreed to disclaimer: (something like:)
> "This flyer is produced by a working group of AWARE, but may not
> reflect the views and opinions of all members of AWARE".
>
> The flyer "in question" was passed out on Saturday at the Main Event.
> This is not the first or only flyer that has been distributed as an
> AWARE flyer without having been approved ahead of distribution by those
> in attendance on a given Sunday. Often a call or idea for a flyer has
> come up at the last minute and someone has kindly volunteered to write
> up something. Nobody objected. Many were thankful someone took care of
> doing the job. I have never felt I had to approve or agree with
> everything AWARE does or puts into print as an organization. I am not
> sure this is even possible with an anarchist group.
>
> The Obama Flyer from 2 years ago may have had the disclaimer (I am not
> sure). But, I am sure that since AWARE did not arrive at consensus
> regarding that event (about whether members would: 1) protest at MTD,
> 2) pass a flyer, or 3) politely attend in the audience) it was decided
> to have individual AWARE members choose which you might feel most
> comfortable doing. The situation changed when police ordered those
> passing flyers to leave MTD property, then when Obama came out to meet
> with the protesters and he overrode the police orders and invited us
> inside with our flyers and protest signs. No planning ahead or
> consensus would have been possible as the event continued to unfolded
> that day!
>
> What I have always appreciated is the ability of AWARE to not be so
> concerned about its good name being questioned. Individuals have been
> willing to attend the meetings, suggest work and if others join.......
> go forth........ We have not been limited by concern over who may or
> may not like our efforts. Besides who should we worry about offending?
> ........no matter what is done for peace and/ or justice it is bound to
> offend someone............
> So, it seems we have once again figured out how to go forth......
> despite this very small disagreement over a flyer.
> There is no deju vu all over again..........no need for concern......
> time and energy remain high.......AWARE's reputation is unchanged
> ........... some will love our work....... others will despise AWARE.
> The group is just the right size and large enough (since whoever shows
> up can paricipate) to do the work that any individual brings forth and
> is willing to work with others to accomplish!
> JAN K
>
> On Jul 9, 2007, at 7:18 PM, Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>
> > Yes, it does seem like deju vu all over again. I am concerned --
> as I
> > was a couple of years ago about the incidents Carl mentioned --
> about
> > the infighting and (especially) the negative and personal attacks
> when
> > there is honest disagreement. Conflict among AWARE members
> takes time
> > and energy away from our stated purpose, causes factions among a
> group
> > that isn't large enough to support them, and hurts our reputation as
> > an organization trying to promote peace and racial equality.
> >
> > Again, I suggest that AWARE define consensus, develop guidelines and
> > timelines for submission of things going public w/ AWARE's name on
> > them, determine whether STRONG objections on the part of X active
> > member(s) has "veto" power, etc.
> >
> > JMHO,
> > Jenifer
> >
> >
> >
> > "C. G. Estabrook" wrote:
> >> A series of objections to the flyer I wrote that was made
> available at
> >> the July 4 parade and distributed at the July 7 Main Event ("America
> >> Salutes Free Enterprise -- But Not Corporate Control and War"
> >> ) has been
> >> put forth by Bob Illyes. None of them has had much substance, but at
> >> Sunday night's AWARE meeting he settled on objecting to a
> plural: the
> >> reference in the flyer to "America's criminal wars and
> occupations in
> >> the Middle East."
> >>
> >> There was only one American occupation, said Bob, and that was
> in Iraq
> >> (he ignored Afghanistan), so the phrase suggested that the US was
> >> responsible for the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. To
> >> imply that the US sponsors Israel's occupation of the Occupied
> >> Territories, or that Israel is a proxy for the US, is
> "disrespectful
> >> to
> >> Israel," said Bob.
> >>
> >> There's a remarkable similarity here to a dispute in AWARE two years
> >> ago, when the distribution of an AWARE flyer at an Obama rally in
> >> Champaign was said to be "disrespectful to the Senator." (I wrote
> >> about
> >> that in "Obama the Enabler: Illinois Anti-Warriors and the
> Attractive
> >> Senator" at .) It's
> >> become clear in the time since then that we were far too
> respectful of
> >> the Senator: see, e.g., Paul Street's review of Obama's book, "The
> >> Mendacity of Hope" (have I got that title wrong?) at
> >> . Today Obama
> >> is claiming to be "anti-war," because most Americans are. But
> his real
> >> views are welcomed by the Neocons: see Robert Kagan, "Obama the
> >> Interventionist" at
> >> .
> >>
> >> The close alliance between the US and Israel is obvious, although
> >> there
> >> are two divergent accounts of how it's to be understood. Israel
> is and
> >> has been by far the largest recipient of US money of any country in
> >> the
> >> world, and the countries in second and third places, Turkey and
> Egypt,
> >> are part of the effective alliance the US pays for as part of its
> >> Middle
> >> East policy. Israel's role in this alliance for forty years has
> been
> >> to
> >> be the "local cop on the beat," in the words of the Nixon
> >> administration. (I wrote about that role on the eve of the US
> invasion
> >> of Iraq: .)
> >>
> >> * * *
> >>
> >> The first account of the US-Israel relation is that put forth last
> >> year
> >> by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen
> Walt of
> >> the
> >> Kennedy School at Harvard in "The Israel Lobby"
> >> . According to their view,
> >> "the United States has been willing to set aside its own security in
> >> order to advance the interests of another state"; US Middle East
> >> policy
> >> is driven primarily by the "Israel Lobby," defined as a "loose
> >> coalition
> >> of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer US
> foreign
> >> policy in a pro-Israel direction." The authors state that the
> "core of
> >> the Lobby" is "American Jews who make a significant effort in their
> >> daily lives to bend US foreign policy so that it advances Israel's
> >> interests." They note that "not all Jewish-Americans are part of the
> >> Lobby," and that "Jewish-Americans also differ on specific Israeli
> >> policies," but "No lobby has managed to divert US foreign policy as
> >> far
> >> from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest,
> >> while
> >> simultaneously convincing Americans that US and Israeli
> interests are
> >> essentially identical." They argue that the "loose coalition" that
> >> makes up the Lobby has "significant leverage over the Executive
> >> branch,"
> >> as well as the ability to make sure that the "Lobby's perspective on
> >> Israel is widely reflected in the mainstream media." They claim that
> >> AIPAC in particular has a "stranglehold on the U.S. Congress,"
> due to
> >> its "ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who
> >> support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it."
> >>
> >> Mearsheimer and Walt decry what they call misuse of "the charge of
> >> anti-Semitism," and argue that pro-Israel groups place great
> >> importance
> >> on "controlling debate" in American academia; they maintain,
> however,
> >> that the Lobby has yet to succeed in its "campaign to eliminate
> >> criticism of Israel from college campuses" (although the Finkelstein
> >> case at DePaul is a recent victory). The authors conclude by arguing
> >> that when the Lobby succeeds in shaping US policy in the Middle
> East,
> >> then "Israel's enemies get weakened or overthrown, Israel gets a
> free
> >> hand with the Palestinians, and the United States does most of the
> >> fighting, dying, rebuilding, and paying."
> >>
> >> * * *
> >>
> >> The second -- and to my mind much better -- account is summarized in
> >> Noam Chomsky's response to Mearsheimer and Walt (see "the Israeli
> >> Lobby?" Znet ):
> >>
> >> "It's a serious, careful piece of work. It deserves to be read. They
> >> deserve credit for writing it. But it still it leaves open the
> >> question
> >> of how valid the analysis is ... Everyone agrees, on all sides, that
> >> there are a number of factors that enter into determining U.S.
> foreign
> >> policy. One is strategic and economic interests of the major power
> >> centers within the United States. In the case of the Middle
> East, that
> >> means the energy corporations, arms producers, high-tech industry,
> >> financial institutions and others. Now, these are not marginal
> >> institutions, particularly in the Bush administration. So one
> question
> >> is to what extent does policy reflect their interests. Another
> >> question
> >> is to what extent is it influenced by domestic lobbies. And
> there are
> >> other factors ... to try to sort out their influence is not so
> simple.
> >> In particular, it's not simple when their interests tend to
> coincide,
> >> and by and large, there's a high degree of conformity ... what's
> >> called
> >> the national interest (meaning the special interests of those in
> whose
> >> hands power is concentrated) tends to conform to the interests
> of the
> >> lobbies ... it's pretty hard to disentangle them.
> >>
> >> "The thesis of the book is that the lobbies have overwhelming
> >> influence, and the so-called 'national interest' is harmed by what
> >> they
> >> do. If that were the case, it would be, I would think, a very
> hopeful
> >> conclusion. It would mean that US policy could easily be
> reversed. It
> >> would simply be necessary to explain to the major centers of
> power --
> >> like the energy corporations, high-tech industry and arms
> producers --
> >> that their interests are being harmed by this small lobby that
> screams
> >> anti-Semitism and funds congressmen. Surely those institutions can
> >> utterly overwhelm the lobby in political influence, in finance,
> and so
> >> on, so that ought to reverse the policy.
> >>
> >> "Well, it doesn't happen, and there are a number of reasons for it.
> >> For
> >> one thing, there's an underlying assumption that the so-called
> >> national
> >> interest has been harmed by these policies ... Have the energy
> >> corporations been harmed by US policy in the Middle East over
> the last
> >> 60 years? They're making profits beyond the dream of avarice.
> The main
> >> concern of the US has been to control what the State Department 60
> >> years
> >> ago called “a stupendous source of strategic power,” Middle East
> oil:
> >> they’ve controlled it ... The major barrier was called 'radical
> >> nationalism.' It was symbolized by Nasser, but also Kassem in Iraq,
> >> and
> >> others. Israel destroyed Nasser in 1967, a tremendous service to US
> >> power, to the energy corporations, to Saudi Arabia, and to the main
> >> centers of power here; and in fact it was after that victory
> that the
> >> US-Israeli relations really solidified, and Israel became a
> 'strategic
> >> asset'...
> >>
> >> "Israel has performed many other services to the United States.
> So in
> >> the 1980s, particularly, Congress was imposing barriers to the
> Reagan
> >> administration's support for and carrying out major terrorist
> >> atrocities
> >> in Central America. Israel helped evade congressional
> restrictions by
> >> carrying out training, and so on, itself. The Congress blocked U.S.
> >> trade with South Africa. Israel helped evade the embargo to both the
> >> racist regimes of Southern Africa, and there have been many other
> >> cases.
> >> By now, Israel is virtually an offshore US military base and
> high-tech
> >> center in the Middle East."
> >>
> >> * * *
> >>
> >> Of course there's another account -- the thoroughly
> propagandized view
> >> held by both political parties in the US. Chosen almost at random,
> >> here's the liberal speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy
> >> Pelosi, swearing fealty to Israel in a speech to AIPAC
> >> :
> >>
> >> "America and Israel share an unbreakable bond: in peace and war;
> and
> >> in
> >> prosperity and in hardship ... There are those who contend that the
> >> Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about Israel's occupation of the
> >> West Bank and Gaza. This is absolute nonsense. In truth, the
> history
> >> of
> >> the conflict is not over occupation, and never has been: it is over
> >> the
> >> fundamental right of Israel to exist.
> >>
> >> "The greatest threat to Israel's right to exist, with the
> prospect of
> >> devastating violence, now comes from Iran. For too long, leaders of
> >> both
> >> political parties in the United States have not done nearly
> enough to
> >> confront the Russians and the Chinese, who have supplied Iran as it
> >> has
> >> plowed ahead with its nuclear and missile technology.
> >>
> >> "The people of Israel long for peace and are willing to make the
> >> sacrifices to achieve it. We hope that peace and security come
> soon -
> >> and that this moment of opportunity is not lost. As Israel
> continues
> >> to
> >> take risks for peace, she will have no friend more steadfast
> that the
> >> United States. [This speech was delivered the summer before Israel
> >> took
> >> the risk for peace of invading Lebanon, with the support of its
> >> steadfast friend and Ms. Pelosi...]
> >>
> >> "In the words of Isaiah, we will make ourselves to Israel 'as hiding
> >> places from the winds and shelters from the tempests; as rivers of
> >> water
> >> in dry places; as shadows of a great rock in a weary land.'
> >>
> >> "The United States will stand with Israel now and forever. Now and
> >> forever."
> >>
> >> Now and forever, right. If, in order to avoid being
> "disrespectful to
> >> Israel," AWARE is going to refuse to recognize America's real
> relation
> >> to Israel and accept instead the fantasy about that relation
> typical
> >> of
> >> American politics, we might as well commit our anti-war work
> into the
> >> co-opting hands of the Democrats and go do something more
> interesting.
> >>
> >> --CGE
> >>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
> Check out fitting gifts for grads
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48249/*http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz>
> at Yahoo! Search.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list