[Peace-discuss] Re: [Peace] minutes of 9/24/06 AWARE meeting

[Morton K. Brussel]

Carl,

You are presuming that no one on the panel will voice any of your  
objections. You could be wrong.

I strongly suggest that you be there to voice your opinions on the  
matter, as I will and I hope Dave Green will--in the same vein. That  
could be the most valuable part of the panel discussion (if the  
moderator allows us the floor, as I assume he must).

This panel serves us with the rare opportunity to air the mideast  
controversy(?) before a crowd not only singing the same tune.

Mort

On Sep 25, 2006, at 5:47 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

>> ...AWARE presents panel on U.S. Policy on Israel/Palestine:
>> Frank Knowles bowed out of organizing the panel
>> Panel reconstituted by Stuart and Gary
>>  Some comments from Michael Shapiro regarding an effective  
>> moderator and
>> assurances on conditions
>>  Ken Cuno, Fred Jahar, Jamal Nassar are other panelists
>>  10/26 7-9PM City Council Chambers, televised for UPTV or taped to  
>> be televised
>>  TJ Wilson is slated as moderator
>>  15 minutes position statements, Q&A after that...
>
> I still don't understand why the panel consists only of voices  
> acceptable to, say, the College Republicans.  In the US today in  
> this matter perhaps particularly there's an effort to keep the  
> discussion within the limits of allowable debate, and AWARE  
> Presents seems to be accepting that requirement.
>
> Shouldn't the "Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort" include a voice  
> actually anti-war -- viz., opposed in principle to US war in the  
> Middle East (including Lebanon and Gaza)?  "By now [2002] the US- 
> Israel-Turkey alliance is a centerpiece of US strategy, and Israel  
> is virtually a US military base, also closely integrated with the  
> militarized US high-tech economy" (Chomsky).  Will the panel  
> contain any principled objection to that situation?
>
> Shouldn't the "Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort" include a voice  
> actually anti-racist -- viz., opposed in principle to US support  
> for its principal client, an explicitly racist state?  Where is our  
> "Anti-Racism Working Group" to condemn this panel's silence in the  
> face of racism?
>
> I thought the point of the panels was to consider what US policy  
> should be now.  Why is there no one on the panel to call for a  
> reversal of support for Israel, at least to the extent of demanding  
> that Israel observe UN resolutions going back almost 40 years?
>
> If these opinions are being excluded, as was suggested, in order  
> not to turn people away, isn't it clear that AWARE has sold its  
> birthright for a mess of pottage?  This seems to me an acquiescence  
> as bad or worse than that to Sen. Obama, where AWARE was told to  
> refrain from criticizing a pro-war senator because he was a black  
> liberal.
>
> Perhaps some of us should try our hand at a leaflet for this event  
> that tries to do what the original remit for the panel suggested  
> --  namely, say what US policy should be in regard to Israel.  If  
> you're interested in working on such a thing, let me know.  --CGE
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss