[Peace-discuss] Correspondence on the Israel panel

[C. G. Estabrook]

[1] Frank Knowles wrote on Wednesday, 9/13/2006 at 4:05pm:

All:

I finally have a panel for "The Confrontation of Israel With Its 
Neighbors." ... The Panel is:

     Professor Kenneth Cuno, History Department, University of Illinois
     Professor Frederic Jaher, History Department, Emeritus, University 
of Illinois
     Professor Jamal Nassar, Chair, Department of Politics and 
Government, Illinois State University
     Professor Michael Shapiro, Director, Program in Jewish Culture and 
Society, University of Illinois

In true democratic style, I have shared this info with you after I have 
committed myself irrevocably.  I think it is a good panel and I couldn't 
wait until the next AWARE meeting to nail it down.   --Frank

=====

[2] Carl Estabrook wrote:

Frank--

You've done a lot of work on this, but I have some hesitations about 
this line-up.  Three out of four are supporters in some degree of 
US/Israel policy.  I've heard Prof. Nassar, but I think it's asking a 
lot to have him carry the weight of critiquing the administration, the 
Mearsheimer-Walt report, and the recent war, among other things.  The 
Chomsky-Finkelstein position is not represented at all, unless Nassar's 
going to do that, and the focus of the panel is supposed to be US policy.

Best, Carl

=====

[3] Frank Knowles wrote:

Carl,

Good to hear from you.  From the policy paragraphs that I received from 
these guys, the lineup was clear: Cuno and Nassar on the left, and Jaher 
and Shapiro on the right.  I think Cuno will give a solid case against 
the US's unconditional backing of Israel, though, no doubt, not as 
stinging an indictment of Israel as you or I might think can be made.  I 
would rather not have the left focus on the war crimes (or other related 
matters) of Israel, but rather on the critique of the US being an ally 
of Israel.  I think Cuno will do this.  I enclose his policy paragraph:

"Approximately 40 years ago Israel became a strategic ally of the US. 
Since then our policy toward the Arab-Israeli conflict has vacillated 
between two approaches, reflecting contrasting strategic visions in 
Washington: (1) trying to reconcile the Israeli alliance with our Arab 
alliances, by mediating the conflict and working toward a settlement; 
and (2) relying on Israel as an asset in our efforts to dominate the 
Middle East. The former was characteristic of the Nixon's second term, 
Ford, Carter, Bush 41 and Clinton. The latter approach has been 
characteristic of Nixon's first term, Reagan and Bush 43. The latter 
approach encourages Israeli irredentism, military adventurism and a hard 
line in general. It has consistently produced more conflict, not less. 
It's bad for Israel, bad for the US and (if anyone cases) bad for the 
Arabs, especially the Palestinians."

  --Frank

=====

[4] Frank--

I'd like to see those policy paragraphs, but it's clear from Cuno's (and 
from other things he's done) that he sees the issue as one of "policy 
options" for Washington.  I thought we were trying to present a 
consideration of what the US policy should be, and many people (myself 
included of course) think that the US should reverse the policy that's 
been common to all recent administrations (Democrat and Republican), 
with only prudential differences, of the sort Cuno indicates.  That view 
is not represented on this panel.

During the Vietnam War, the "responsible" debate was between those who 
supported the administration's potion and those who thought it was 
ineffective, too expensive, etc.  That meant that the "responsible 
debate" excluded the view that about 70% of the public held by 1969 -- 
that the war as "fundamentally wrong and immoral," not "a mistake." 
(Those last two phrases come from survey data at the time.)

I'm afraid that we'd be making the same error here -- producing a 
"responsible debate," and AWARE stands for the irresponsible view that 
US policy in the Middle East is once again fundamentally wrong and 
immoral.  That view should be represented on the panel.

Regards, Carl

[Here's a comment by an AWARE member on Fred Jaher's views.  --CGE]
     Anti-semitism or Social Injustice? A Response to Fred Jaher by 
David Green...
     [See at <http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/27949/index.php>.]

=====

[5] Frank Knowles wrote:

Carl,

If the goal is a balanced panel, there will be views you might not 
respect and, since there are only four panelists, there will surely be 
some incompleteness in the exposition.  As you predicted at the start, 
it is very difficult to get the Administration supporters to break 
cover.  So, Jaher is in.  I didn't want Green on the same panel--too 
explosive (my judgement from reading his letters to the editor).  I will 
approach him for the other two panels.

BTW, are you available for one or two of the other panels; any 
preference? Right now, I have only one (leftish) person who has answered 
my email expressing interest and he could be on both.  So, you and Green 
would fill out the left on the two panels, but I have no right ends.  I 
am considering Foreman, but I don't even have other names for this 
policy end.

If I had known how my ignorance of the local scene would impact finding 
out who is who and who is willing, I wouldn't have started.

Cheers, Frank

=====

[6] Frank--

The problem is that it's not balanced at all.  At least three of the 
four *are* administration supporters -- or have only tactical criticisms 
of the administration's position.  That's not something AWARE should be 
sponsoring.  This panel would be approved of by the Democrats or 
Republicans, because it's well within the "limits of allowable debate."

I think you should try to add someone who is opposed to US policy in 
principle -- e.g., David Green or Francis Boyle.  Green's expertise is 
on this issue, not on the topics of the other two panels. (Mort Brussel 
of AWARE is another possibility.) With five panelists, each could make a 
ten-minute statement, leaving time for questions and discussion.

And, yes, I am available for either or both of the other panels.  Since 
the common topic is what the US policy should be, I think you should try 
to balance the panel not between left and right but between those who 
who oppose the administration's policy in principle and those who 
support it in principle.  Many people who are seen as being on the left 
of the Democratic party (our Illinois senators, for example) are in fact 
supporters of the war on terrorism and of the Iraq and Lebanon wars, 
however much they may seem to criticize the Republicans.

Regards, Carl

=====

[7]  Frank Knowles wrote:

Carl,

I don't want to continue a debate with you about the Israel panel which 
is now set.  As to the assertion that AWARE shouldn't be sponsoring this 
debate because it is too centrist, I can only say this: 1) a little help 
from my friends would have been useful 2) two members of this panel will 
challenge the historical unconditional alliance between Israel and the 
US 3) Francis Boyle declined, with some heat, to my invitation because 
he thought that my request for policy positions ahead of time was 
censorship and because he refused to be on a panel with "apologists for 
Israel."

As for your comments on "right" and "left," what you said is really what 
I meant by "right" and "left."  I hope that your concerns can be met by 
the pumping up the question and answer session and by the buzz of the 
previous panels, if they materialize.

Best regards (really),
  --Frank

=====

[8] Carl Estabrook wrote:

Frank--

What do you mean by a "a little help from your friends"?  You seem 
particularly to have declined help in choosing the panel, as you said.

The alliance between US and Israel -- or rather Israel's almost 40-year 
client relationship to the United States -- has never been 
unconditional: the US supports Israel for what it gets out of it, ant if 
that were to stop, so would the support.  To "challenge the historical 
unconditional alliance between Israel and the US" is to attack a straw 
man -- at best irrelevant, at worst purposely misleading.

A panel that debates only the modalities of the US support for Israel is 
not one that AWARE should be sponsoring.  Are you absolutely refusing to 
add a speaker outside of the narrow range now represented?  --CGE

=====

[9] Frank Knowles wrote:

Carl,

This looks like a cat fight. I've just spoken with Durl and we have 
agreed that the AWARE Presents working group will report to the AWARE 
meeting Sunday night on the state of the Israel panel and they will try 
to reach a consensus.  I will be there and I assume that you will be 
there too.  As I understand it, there is first an effort at consensus 
and then there is something like a "90% rule" vote.  I have made it 
clear to Durl that I am not interested in forming a different panel and 
I would be happy to withdraw from the panel project entirely if AWARE 
feels that it can't support the Israel panel as constituted.

I admit that I am simply flabbergasted by your position, Carl.  Perhaps, 
if we had worked as a team from the beginning, we could have navigated 
the selection process as we went.  At this point, to change the panel 
would be to go back on my understanding with the panelists.  Someone 
else will have to do that.

  --Frank

=====

[10] Carl Estabrook wrote:

Frank--

By saying that you're "not interested in forming a different panel" I 
assume you're rejecting my suggestion that someone be added to the panel 
who objects to the US/Israeli policy consensus followed by Republican 
and Democratic administrations alike.  That narrow range of policy 
options (inaccurately called "defending Israel") is seen by the rest of 
the world as bellicist and racist.  The "Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort" 
should be promoting something more than another narrow discussion of 
those options.  To do so is to accept the limitations of the US 
political establishment and perpetuate the falsehood that that's what 
the issue really is, when we ask what US/Israeli policy should be.

Do I have your permission to post our discussion of this matter to the 
AWARE mailing list?  --Carl

=====

[11] Frank Knowles wrote:

Carl,

Yes, you do have my permission to post this series of emails to the 
AWARE list.  And please include this one.  And if you wish to rebut what 
I have here, please send the entire series to me also.  I promise not to 
add to the list by giving another reply.

I think now, that it was unwise of me to form this panel on my own after 
I realized that you were not going to be a working partner.  I didn't 
think that we would have such a sharp difference over what could be a 
suitable panel for AWARE to sponsor, so I just did it on my own.  Also, 
I think AWARE Presents was in an awkward situation when they agreed to 
let me get the panelists and they would do the publicity.  They were 
assuming (I guess), since I invoked your name, that I was to be trusted. 
  I thought at first that I could come back to AWARE to bless my 
choices, but when the time came,  I doubted, if the panel had to be 
changed, that  I could get even that panel done by 26 Sep, a date that 
would give the publicity for the series of three panels, the two weeks 
it would need to really get out there.

Durl will give a report to AWARE on Sunday and I will forthwith forward 
to him and to you the bios and position paragraphs that I received from 
the panelist.  You may post to the AWARE list the info that I will send 
you and Durl.  I think I understand your concern that there should be 
someone (at least one) on the panel that AWARE could be sure would 
present the collective view of AWARE.  My vision was different. My goal 
was to present four academics with expertise in the Middle East whose 
views would range from a Palestinian point of view to an Israeli point 
of view (I know that this is a crude description of the views out 
there).  I did not want a replay of letters to the News-Gazette, though 
I figured the question and answer session would work to get other views. 
  I believe your real concern is with Cuno who appears to be too soft on 
past administrations.  I think his talk would open up the question of 
justice, in contrast to the Jaher and Shapiro, who main concern is 
defending Israel.

Finally, because of the awkard relationshi cited above, I don't think I 
can continue to form the other panels on my own. Moreover, if AWARE 
decides to change the Israel panel, I believe my credibility with the 
panelists is undermined and I should withdraw as a contact person for 
that panel. Actually, AWARE has put little into these panels at this 
point and could just drop the whole thing without embarrassment.  Or you 
could just take it over.  I am suddenly very tired.

See you Sunday,

Best regards,
--Frank

     ###