[Peace-discuss] Estabrook

[Morton K.Brussel]

I feel it unwise to venture into this territory, but here goes  
anyway. I do not mean to offend.

On Jul 9, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Bob Illyes wrote:

>
> Carl misses the point. AWARE membership has significant
> differences on number of issues. A few are
>
> 1) Carl claims that Democrats (and more generally liberals) are
> largely at fault for the Iraq war and occupation. Most of us do
> not agree with that. Hence his attack flyer on Obama which caused
> serious conflict inside AWARE and cost us some valuable members.
> It also brought us much discredit in the community. I wasn't
> going to bring it up, but he just did.

Whether the Democrats are "largely at fault" or just  heavily  
implicated in the "fault" could be debated. I'm not sure what Carl's  
position is, except that as a minimum he certainly subscribes to the  
latter position. He does seem more incensed by Democrats than  
Republicans in various of our discussions, perhaps because of their  
hypocrisy---and people expected more of them??. In any case, I have  
no idea as to what "most of us" think about that.

I think it regrettable to dig up the AWARE disputes triggered by  
criticisms of Obama two years ago. Some members of AWARE back then  
felt attacked/offended by what they perceived as personal attacks  
upon them, and decided to quit. AWARE did suffer from that, but the  
blame ought to be shared.
	That members of the local Black community were incensed by an attack  
on Obama is/was unfortunate, a matter not particularly relevant  to  
issues of peace justice or racism. Obama has since lost considerable  
credibility in the black community with his equivocal positions and  
his chase after corporate money.
>
> 2) Carl claims that the American form of government is fundamentally
> flawed. It is not clear what his counter-proposal is. In a  
> conversation
> at a mutual friend's house, he claimed that we have had no good
> presidents, and that it is impossible that we can under the existing
> system. Many of us disagree with that. I grant you that all of our
> presidents were seriously flawed, but all people are, including me
> and possibly even Carl.

Bob,  poll the active membership. There is now a large body of  
opinion that believes that the system has been severely corrupted.  
Most probably hope it can be redeemed. That we have government  
leaders  who do not represent majority American opinion on so many  
issues, and that we have no truly opposition party can be cited as  
evidence of fatal flaws in the current system.

> 3) Carl claims a global conspiracy behind our action in Iraq. A number
> of us think this is not only wrong but simplistic, and that Israel
> (which is a part of this posited conspiracy) is not our proxy (as
> Carl proposes) but an independent country.

Israel may be an independent country, but one that would be in deep  
trouble without American support. Most of the world recognizes the  
symbiotic relationship between the policies and acts of Israel and  
recent US administrations. As to the first sentence above, I don't  
know where it comes from.
>
> I could go on, but I only listed a few because my point is that
> we do not have consensus on a number of important issues. Things
> that we do not have consensus on should not be in an AWARE brochure.

It is up to you, Bob, to voice your concerns and disagreements in our  
meetings and see how things play out. We've done that now in  
connection with Carl's pamphlet. Let it go.
>
> What disturbs me most is that both the Obama attack flyer and
> the recent flyer contained material that Carl knew some of us would
> strongly object to, but he put it in anyhow and then didn't run it
> by a meeting before issuing it in our name. Am I imagining things,
> or is there a pattern here?

How many is "Some of us"?  You are attributing machinations to Carl  
without evidence. You may well be imagining…
>
> There is one more difference that I should mention:
>
> 4) Most of us believe that peace begets peace and that conflict begets
> conflict, and we try to make peace a way of life. Carl proposes that
> conflict is necessary to bring peace, and brings that conflict into
> AWARE. We are a strong voice for peace. It is important that we
> don't self-destruct.

The dichotomy posited between peace and conflict is flawed. I suppose  
you meant to say VIOLENT conflict. [Definition of "conflict":  an  
incompatibility between two or more opinions, principles, or  
interests.]  Conflict is in fact necessary for those who believe in  
peace and justice nowadays, for must we not oppose what's happening  
domestically and globally?
>
> Bob
>
Things are not so bad as you imply, Bob.

Cheers, Mort
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070709/7a822c9d/attachment.html