[Peace-discuss] Today's Letters to N-G = Radical Cult blindly follows research of Carl Estabrook!

Thu Apr 12 09:36:04 CDT 2007

Bob, I also appreciate your tireless efforts, and I do appreciate the idea that the tone of rhetoric is important, that it be consistent with our goals of peace and justice. I thank Carl for describing in clinical terms what I expressed in a more vernacular sense, although with some sense that what is most central does not get talked about, but displaced, and is being displaced on AWARE, not to mention Annette Williams.  I would even admit to being neurotic myself by focusing on the peculiar relationship between Jews and the antiwar movement, rather than more fundamental issues of class and racial domination, including those that manifest themselves on a daily basis in our community.

  But let's not kid ourselves by denying that a significant number of Jews in our community who would call themselves liberal simply take for granted that AWARE is anti-Semitic. That's the connotation for AWARE at Sinai Temple and Jewish Federation. It might be good if this were confronted more openly.

  At the AWARE-sponsored panel in October, which I watched on television, Fred Jaher said that he opposed the invasion of Iraq from the start, but that Israel should have invaded Lebanon more aggressively than it did. What's being denied is the nature of U.S. hegemony in the Middle East, which he basically supports, and which makes his opposition to the Iraq invasion meaningless--I suspect he preferred to defame the antiwar movement for anti-Semitism rather than actively support it, whatever his tactical objections. I think that also characterizes the nature of the belated criticism of mainstream Jewish organizations, such as the Reformed Movement, of the invasion of Iraq. Indeed, they still claim that removing Hussein was correct, but that the occupation has been mishandled. At the same forum, Michael Shaprio described our invasion of Iraq as a "blunder," the most annoying and disingenuous word in the liberal lexicon. Again, this serves to deny the nature of U.S. policies,
 and to avoid drawing a connection between U.S. and Israeli polcies. 

  The implied notion of some essential Jewish innocence or goodness, and the concurrent evil of anti-Semitism, is being used to avoid confronting the nature of American foreign policy.

  David

Robert Naiman <naiman.uiuc at gmail.com> wrote:
  Let me say what I should have said earlier: that there is no limit to
my appreciation of David's tireless defense of Palestinian rights.

Still, I think that publicly ascribing mental illness to one's
political opponents as an explanation of their stated political views
is neither ethical nor in the interests of justice.

It is unethical because it is dehumanizing.

It is not in the interests of justice because, if there is to be any
significant change in U.S. policy towards the Palestinians in the
direction of justice as a result of domestic pressure, many more
people have to be involved in the discussion than have been involved
in the discussion in the past. In my experience, a significant barrier
to the involvement of more people in the discussion is the credible
belief that entrants to the discussion will be subjected to vicious
personal attacks. Overwhelmingly, the responsibility for this
situation belongs to so-called "supporters of Israel," for many of
whom it appears to be a deliberate strategy to silence debate. But
that is no reason to add to the problem.

On 4/11/07, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> I don't think it's an insult but rather an acute analysis of the source
> of these comments in opposition to us.
>
> David describes liberal Jews "struggling ... neurotically" with the
> problem of resisting "cognitive dissonance while supporting U.S. and
> Israeli depredations"; and he says he means "liberal in the positive
> connotations of the word."
>
> "Neurosis" refers to anxiety from an unadmitted (often unconscious)
> source, attached to another object, which is then misperceived (e.g., a
> pathological fear of dogs or germs). That seems to me a precise
> description of the attitude of those who think that the Bush war in the
> ME is in Israel's interest, but without mentioning Israel, furiously
> attack opponents of the war. Their anxiety's source is what they take
> to be the interests of the Israeli state, but it's manifested as an
> attack on the opponents of the war (which know is highly objectionable
> and so don't "dare to offer a word in support" -- hence their "cognitive
> dissonance"). --CGE
>
>
> Robert Naiman wrote:
> > Mightn't it be possible to disagree with views stated by Michael
> > Shapiro and Fred Jaher without describing them as "neurotic"? What is
> > accomplished by these personal insults?
> >
> > I find this personally offensive. Might it be possible to raise the
> > standard of discourse around here?
> >
> > P.S. I like Michael Shapiro. Could the enemies list be pruned a bit? I
> > figured there was no harm in askin'.
> >
> > On 4/11/07, David Green wrote:
> >> Linda Kurtz is actually the same woman who a couple of years ago openly
> >> insulted Hibba Leseman (sp?) at the Wal-Mart regarding her Islamic
> >> apparel.
> >> I believe that she or her husband is a Democratic precinct leader in
> >> Champaign.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, both of these writers appear to be at least nominally
> >> Jewish,
> >> and probably not by accident. It's become harder and harder for
> >> liberal Jews
> >> to resist cognitive dissonance while supporting U.S. and Israeli
> >> depredations, a problem we saw both Fred Jaher and Michael Shapiro
> >> struggling with rather neurotically while posturing as liberals (I mean
> >> liberal in the positive connotations of the word) at the recent AWARE
> >> panel.
> >>
> >> Both of these letter writers are crackpots, but neither of them dares to
> >> offer a word in support of the Iraq war. What gets their goat is that
> >> AWARE
> >> promotes criticism of Israel, and threatens their triumphalist vision of
> >> Judeo-Christian civilization. Their support for Israel allows them to
> >> maintain the illusion that somehow U.S. motives in the Middle East have a
> >> moral basis, and to see the world in moralistic terms. The useful role of
> >> American support for Israel in serving to silence or tone down so much
> >> potential dissent from influential people to general foreign polices
> >> is just
> >> one more reason to understand that it is not the Israel Lobby that is
> >> fundamental to that support.
> >>
> >> DG
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Jan & Durl Kruse wrote:
> >> AWARE members offering bad advice
> >>
> >> Wednesday April 11, 2007
> >>
> >> With increased Democratic Party representation throughout government,
> >> we can hope for policies that recognize that the function of a national
> >> economy is not merely to increase the production of goods and services
> >> but to distribute this plenty throughout the nation.
> >>
> >> But it is even more important that our representatives safeguard U.S.
> >> interests worldwide by avoiding bad advice, such as that offered by a
> >> local cult that calls itself AWARE.
> >>
> >> Its Web site professes a concern with the global spread of American
> >> power, and its goal is to decrease American power. When AWARE members
> >> peddle a plan to the Urbana City Council, they do not disclose their
> >> belief that the U.S. has too much global power, and that's an excellent
> >> strategy. Even Urbana residents realize that the U.S. has a moral
> >> obligation to use our power for right, not wrong. Without that power,
> >> someone else's notions of right will prevail. At present it is radical
> >> Islam that has an opposing notion of right and wrong.
> >>
> >> AWARE also professes a concern with the increased militarization of
> >> society. Al-Qaida, Taliban, Hezbollah, Sunni insurgents in Iraq, Shiite
> >> death squads – AWARE is onto something here. These groups, however,
> >> hate the U.S. and hate the existence of Israel, so AWARE cuts them
> >> endless slack. To AWARE, they are resisters of foreign domination and
> >> protectors of sacred heritages. It is the sight of a U.S. serviceman
> >> proudly wearing his uniform while speaking at a school that sends AWARE
> >> members into a foot-stamping snit.
> >>
> >> AWARE supporters do not belong in any position of public responsibility.
> >>
> >> I. DAVID BERG
> >>
> >> Urbana
> >> Find this article at:
> >>
> >> http://www.news-gazette.com/news/opinions/letters/2007/04/11/
> >> aware_members_offering_bad_advice
> >>
> >>
> >> Council candidate a member of AWARE
> >>
> >> Wednesday April 11, 2007
> >>
> >> Champaign voters be AWARE. Annette Williams, candidate for Champaign
> >> City Council, is an active member of the radical group AWARE. She is
> >> endorsed by and admits to blindly following the research of Carl
> >> Estabrook. Is this a person you want on your city council? I hope not.
> >>
> >> LINDA KURTZ
> >>
> >> Champaign
> >> Find this article at:
> >> http://www.news-gazette.com/news/opinions/letters/2007/04/11/
> >> council_candidate_a_member_of_aware
> >>
>

---------------------------------
8:00? 8:25? 8:40?  Find a flick in no time
 with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070412/e09f35ac/attachment.html