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

[C. G. Estabrook]

Your reports from your fantasy land are always at least clinically 
interesting, Mark, but usually confusing.  I would have thought that if 
you were concerned with the work of AWARE -- i.e., if you wanted to 
reverse the government's murderous and racist policies -- we'd see you 
at a meeting or demonstration.

The "lament of someone who didn't get involved when they had the 
chance"?  Are you asking what I did in the war (Vietnam or Iraq)?  Is 
that relevant?

"Conflating various anti-war folks' opinions with wartime agressors"? 
Do I espy through the inventive spelling and grammar a critique of 
something I wrote?  Perhaps "Darfur Smokescreen" or "A Fragile State, 
recently posted here?  Maybe it would be interesting to hear what your 
actual objections are.

And amidst your usual insults and oft-proclaimed passion for honesty, 
your question about evidence shows you haven't even read the 
correspondence posted to this list about the AWARE panels.

See you at the demo, Mark. --CGE


Chas. 'Mark' Bee wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
> To: "Peace Discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 6:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Re: [Peace] minutes of 9/24/06 AWARE meeting
> 
> 
>> 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
> 
>  lol  Sounds like the whinging lament of someone who didn't get involved 
> when they had the chance.
> 
>  Where's *your* panel, Carl?  (Admittedly, that takes more work - and 
> more honesty - than routinely conflating various anti-war folks' 
> opinions with wartime agressors chosen at random, your ol' 
> slap-in-the-face standby.)
> 
>  Just out of curiosity, where's your evidence that the working group 
> "explicitly excluded speakers who felt that the war was not a mistake 
> but fundamentally wrong and immoral?"  And do remember, since you make 
> it your habit to forget - correlation does not imply causation.  Showing 
> that all the speakers feel otherwise doesn't fill that bill.
> 
>>
>>
>> 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
>>>>