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

Thu Apr 12 10:34:15 CDT 2007

I am certainly aware that, among some Jews in our community,
historically the evidence threshold for publicly declaring that
particular critics of Israeli policies are guilty of anti-Semitism has
been rather low. I don't think that there is any danger that I will
forget that. ;)

I certainly agree that the accusation of (intrinsic) anti-Semitism
against critics of Israeli and U.S. policies in the Middle East should
be confronted, here and elsewhere.

It would be interesting, I think, to put some of these issues to the
test in the form of a practical organizing project.

National poll data suggests that the opposition of American Jews to
the Iraq war is quite strong, stronger even than in the population as
a whole.

Now we have a referendum coming up on cutting funding for the U.S.
occupation of Iraq. We could, for example, try at some point to
circulate a broad statement in support of the referendum, and try to
get local Jewish organizations, and/or individuals active in the local
Jewish community, to sign on.

[By "broad statement" I mean statement crafted to try to win the
broadest support - e.g. it should not call for dismantling the U.S.
empire in 6 months.]

On 4/12/07, David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>