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

[C. G. Estabrook]

Jan, what would you have said of a Vietnam War teach-in that explicitly 
excluded speakers who felt that the war was not a mistake but 
fundamentally wrong and immoral?  I'd say it was cooked.  Best, CGE


Jan & Durl Kruse wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss