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

[Jan & Durl Kruse]

Carl,
We do hope you come and not only flier if you wish, but also ask  
appropriate questions (anti-war voice that you find lacking on the  
panel).
AWAREPresents has no intention of excluding voices from any  
perspective or limiting allowable debate, including a call for a  
reversal of US support for Israel.  The panel composition was not  
based upon the possibility of "turning people away" but rather upon  
the consensus of the working group who planned this forum.  Our  
intent is to have a civil, informed, and productive discussion on a  
timely and important topic of interest to many.
Missing perspectives (there may be many) will be brought forward in  
the Q & A to encourage the discussion to be as inclusive as possible.
We hope you will attend and add your voice to the conversation.
Durl and Jan

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