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

[C. G. Estabrook]

You read the position statements of the panelists, Mort.  You also heard 
it said at the last meeting but one that an anti-war anti-racist voice 
on the panel would turn people away.

I think I'd rather flyer the meeting than try to get a (necessarily 
subordinate) spot as a question-asker.  --CGE


Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> 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