[Peace-discuss] AWARE "disrespectful to...

[Jenifer Cartwright]

Thanks for the update and clarification, Jan. I haven't attended meetings in years so was reacting to recent postings to the list (re the flyer-in-question and other-wise), AND remembering unfortunate aftermath of Obama's visit a couple of years ago when we lost ground w/ a key member of the African American community, and objections voiced w/in the group were countered w/ disrespectful and personal attacks twds one dissenting member, which resulted in loss of key member(s) of AWARE. 
   
  I agree that members will have- and express their differences... however, while dissent will be certainly be present from time to time, disrespect should not be tolerated at any time. 
   
  And perhaps -- although you (and most members?) feel the present system is working well -- others might weigh in on the guidelines and timelines, including when AWARE's name vs AWARE's name w/ disclaimer should be used?
   
  Jenifer
   
      

Jan & Durl Kruse <jandurl at insightbb.com> wrote:
  Many months ago AWARE established a set of guidelines, which to date 
has been used as needed. For the past many months AWARE has peacefully 
gone about its work. Infighting in recent meetings has been 
non-existent. Those present at Sunday meetings know this from first 
hand experience. But now a difference has arisen. Those who attended 
this past Sunday will probably recall (and we'll hope the posted 
minutes will reflect) that we have already dealt with the current flyer 
issue. We (those present) reminded ourselves that if we do not have 
the required and agreed upon 90 percent consensus for a flyer, then 
that flyer will have the prior agreed to disclaimer: (something like:)
"This flyer is produced by a working group of AWARE, but may not 
reflect the views and opinions of all members of AWARE".

The flyer "in question" was passed out on Saturday at the Main Event. 
This is not the first or only flyer that has been distributed as an 
AWARE flyer without having been approved ahead of distribution by those 
in attendance on a given Sunday. Often a call or idea for a flyer has 
come up at the last minute and someone has kindly volunteered to write 
up something. Nobody objected. Many were thankful someone took care of 
doing the job. I have never felt I had to approve or agree with 
everything AWARE does or puts into print as an organization. I am not 
sure this is even possible with an anarchist group.

The Obama Flyer from 2 years ago may have had the disclaimer (I am not 
sure). But, I am sure that since AWARE did not arrive at consensus 
regarding that event (about whether members would: 1) protest at MTD, 
2) pass a flyer, or 3) politely attend in the audience) it was decided 
to have individual AWARE members choose which you might feel most 
comfortable doing. The situation changed when police ordered those 
passing flyers to leave MTD property, then when Obama came out to meet 
with the protesters and he overrode the police orders and invited us 
inside with our flyers and protest signs. No planning ahead or 
consensus would have been possible as the event continued to unfolded 
that day!

What I have always appreciated is the ability of AWARE to not be so 
concerned about its good name being questioned. Individuals have been 
willing to attend the meetings, suggest work and if others join....... 
go forth........ We have not been limited by concern over who may or 
may not like our efforts. Besides who should we worry about offending? 
........no matter what is done for peace and/ or justice it is bound to 
offend someone............
So, it seems we have once again figured out how to go forth...... 
despite this very small disagreement over a flyer.
There is no deju vu all over again..........no need for concern...... 
time and energy remain high.......AWARE's reputation is unchanged 
........... some will love our work....... others will despise AWARE. 
The group is just the right size and large enough (since whoever shows 
up can paricipate) to do the work that any individual brings forth and 
is willing to work with others to accomplish!
JAN K

On Jul 9, 2007, at 7:18 PM, Jenifer Cartwright wrote:

> Yes, it does seem like deju vu all over again.  I am concerned -- as I 
> was a couple of years ago about the incidents Carl mentioned -- about 
> the infighting and (especially) the negative and personal attacks when 
> there is honest disagreement. Conflict among AWARE members takes time 
> and energy away from our stated purpose, causes factions among a group 
> that isn't large enough to support them, and hurts our reputation as 
> an organization trying to promote peace and racial equality. 
>  
> Again, I suggest that AWARE define consensus, develop guidelines and 
> timelines for submission of things going public w/ AWARE's name on 
> them, determine whether STRONG objections on the part of X active 
> member(s) has "veto" power, etc.
>  
> JMHO,
> Jenifer
>  
>
>
> "C. G. Estabrook" wrote:
>> A series of objections to the flyer I wrote that was made available at
>> the July 4 parade and distributed at the July 7 Main Event ("America
>> Salutes Free Enterprise -- But Not Corporate Control and War"
>> ) has been
>> put forth by Bob Illyes. None of them has had much substance, but at
>> Sunday night's AWARE meeting he settled on objecting to a plural: the
>> reference in the flyer to "America's criminal wars and occupations in
>> the Middle East."
>>
>> There was only one American occupation, said Bob, and that was in Iraq
>> (he ignored Afghanistan), so the phrase suggested that the US was
>> responsible for the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. To
>> imply that the US sponsors Israel's occupation of the Occupied
>> Territories, or that Israel is a proxy for the US, is "disrespectful 
>> to
>> Israel," said Bob.
>>
>> There's a remarkable similarity here to a dispute in AWARE two years
>> ago, when the distribution of an AWARE flyer at an Obama rally in
>> Champaign was said to be "disrespectful to the Senator." (I wrote 
>> about
>> that in "Obama the Enabler: Illinois Anti-Warriors and the Attractive
>> Senator" at .) It's
>> become clear in the time since then that we were far too respectful of
>> the Senator: see, e.g., Paul Street's review of Obama's book, "The
>> Mendacity of Hope" (have I got that title wrong?) at
>> . Today Obama
>> is claiming to be "anti-war," because most Americans are. But his real
>> views are welcomed by the Neocons: see Robert Kagan, "Obama the
>> Interventionist" at
>> .
>>
>> The close alliance between the US and Israel is obvious, although 
>> there
>> are two divergent accounts of how it's to be understood. Israel is and
>> has been by far the largest recipient of US money of any country in 
>> the
>> world, and the countries in second and third places, Turkey and Egypt,
>> are part of the effective alliance the US pays for as part of its 
>> Middle
>> East policy. Israel's role in this alliance for forty years has been 
>> to
>> be the "local cop on the beat," in the words of the Nixon
>> administration. (I wrote about that role on the eve of the US invasion
>> of Iraq: .)
>>
>> * * *
>>
>> The first account of the US-Israel relation is that put forth last 
>> year
>> by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of 
>> the
>> Kennedy School at Harvard in "The Israel Lobby"
>> . According to their view,
>> "the United States has been willing to set aside its own security in
>> order to advance the interests of another state"; US Middle East 
>> policy
>> is driven primarily by the "Israel Lobby," defined as a "loose 
>> coalition
>> of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer US foreign
>> policy in a pro-Israel direction." The authors state that the "core of
>> the Lobby" is "American Jews who make a significant effort in their
>> daily lives to bend US foreign policy so that it advances Israel's
>> interests." They note that "not all Jewish-Americans are part of the
>> Lobby," and that "Jewish-Americans also differ on specific Israeli
>> policies," but "No lobby has managed to divert US foreign policy as 
>> far
>> from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, 
>> while
>> simultaneously convincing Americans that US and Israeli interests are
>> essentially identical." They argue that the "loose coalition" that
>> makes up the Lobby has "significant leverage over the Executive 
>> branch,"
>> as well as the ability to make sure that the "Lobby's perspective on
>> Israel is widely reflected in the mainstream media." They claim that
>> AIPAC in particular has a "stranglehold on the U.S. Congress," due to
>> its "ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who
>> support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it."
>>
>> Mearsheimer and Walt decry what they call misuse of "the charge of
>> anti-Semitism," and argue that pro-Israel groups place great 
>> importance
>> on "controlling debate" in American academia; they maintain, however,
>> that the Lobby has yet to succeed in its "campaign to eliminate
>> criticism of Israel from college campuses" (although the Finkelstein
>> case at DePaul is a recent victory). The authors conclude by arguing
>> that when the Lobby succeeds in shaping US policy in the Middle East,
>> then "Israel's enemies get weakened or overthrown, Israel gets a free
>> hand with the Palestinians, and the United States does most of the
>> fighting, dying, rebuilding, and paying."
>>
>> * * *
>>
>> The second -- and to my mind much better -- account is summarized in
>> Noam Chomsky's response to Mearsheimer and Walt (see "the Israeli
>> Lobby?" Znet ):
>>
>> "It's a serious, careful piece of work. It deserves to be read. They
>> deserve credit for writing it. But it still it leaves open the 
>> question
>> of how valid the analysis is ... Everyone agrees, on all sides, that
>> there are a number of factors that enter into determining U.S. foreign
>> policy. One is strategic and economic interests of the major power
>> centers within the United States. In the case of the Middle East, that
>> means the energy corporations, arms producers, high-tech industry,
>> financial institutions and others. Now, these are not marginal
>> institutions, particularly in the Bush administration. So one question
>> is to what extent does policy reflect their interests. Another 
>> question
>> is to what extent is it influenced by domestic lobbies. And there are
>> other factors ... to try to sort out their influence is not so simple.
>> In particular, it's not simple when their interests tend to coincide,
>> and by and large, there's a high degree of conformity ... what's 
>> called
>> the national interest (meaning the special interests of those in whose
>> hands power is concentrated) tends to conform to the interests of the
>> lobbies ... it's pretty hard to disentangle them.
>>
>> "The thesis of the book is that the lobbies have overwhelming
>> influence, and the so-called 'national interest' is harmed by what 
>> they
>> do. If that were the case, it would be, I would think, a very hopeful
>> conclusion. It would mean that US policy could easily be reversed. It
>> would simply be necessary to explain to the major centers of power --
>> like the energy corporations, high-tech industry and arms producers --
>> that their interests are being harmed by this small lobby that screams
>> anti-Semitism and funds congressmen. Surely those institutions can
>> utterly overwhelm the lobby in political influence, in finance, and so
>> on, so that ought to reverse the policy.
>>
>> "Well, it doesn't happen, and there are a number of reasons for it. 
>> For
>> one thing, there's an underlying assumption that the so-called 
>> national
>> interest has been harmed by these policies ... Have the energy
>> corporations been harmed by US policy in the Middle East over the last
>> 60 years? They're making profits beyond the dream of avarice. The main
>> concern of the US has been to control what the State Department 60 
>> years
>> ago called “a stupendous source of strategic power,” Middle East oil:
>> they’ve controlled it ... The major barrier was called 'radical
>> nationalism.' It was symbolized by Nasser, but also Kassem in Iraq, 
>> and
>> others. Israel destroyed Nasser in 1967, a tremendous service to US
>> power, to the energy corporations, to Saudi Arabia, and to the main
>> centers of power here; and in fact it was after that victory that the
>> US-Israeli relations really solidified, and Israel became a 'strategic
>> asset'...
>>
>> "Israel has performed many other services to the United States. So in
>> the 1980s, particularly, Congress was imposing barriers to the Reagan
>> administration's support for and carrying out major terrorist 
>> atrocities
>> in Central America. Israel helped evade congressional restrictions by
>> carrying out training, and so on, itself. The Congress blocked U.S.
>> trade with South Africa. Israel helped evade the embargo to both the
>> racist regimes of Southern Africa, and there have been many other 
>> cases.
>> By now, Israel is virtually an offshore US military base and high-tech
>> center in the Middle East."
>>
>> * * *
>>
>> Of course there's another account -- the thoroughly propagandized view
>> held by both political parties in the US. Chosen almost at random,
>> here's the liberal speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy
>> Pelosi, swearing fealty to Israel in a speech to AIPAC
>> :
>>
>> "America and Israel share an unbreakable bond: in peace and war; and 
>> in
>> prosperity and in hardship ... There are those who contend that the
>> Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about Israel's occupation of the
>> West Bank and Gaza. This is absolute nonsense. In truth, the history 
>> of
>> the conflict is not over occupation, and never has been: it is over 
>> the
>> fundamental right of Israel to exist.
>>
>> "The greatest threat to Israel's right to exist, with the prospect of
>> devastating violence, now comes from Iran. For too long, leaders of 
>> both
>> political parties in the United States have not done nearly enough to
>> confront the Russians and the Chinese, who have supplied Iran as it 
>> has
>> plowed ahead with its nuclear and missile technology.
>>
>> "The people of Israel long for peace and are willing to make the
>> sacrifices to achieve it. We hope that peace and security come soon -
>> and that this moment of opportunity is not lost. As Israel continues 
>> to
>> take risks for peace, she will have no friend more steadfast that the
>> United States. [This speech was delivered the summer before Israel 
>> took
>> the risk for peace of invading Lebanon, with the support of its
>> steadfast friend and Ms. Pelosi...]
>>
>> "In the words of Isaiah, we will make ourselves to Israel 'as hiding
>> places from the winds and shelters from the tempests; as rivers of 
>> water
>> in dry places; as shadows of a great rock in a weary land.'
>>
>> "The United States will stand with Israel now and forever. Now and
>> forever."
>>
>> Now and forever, right. If, in order to avoid being "disrespectful to
>> Israel," AWARE is going to refuse to recognize America's real relation
>> to Israel and accept instead the fantasy about that relation typical 
>> of
>> American politics, we might as well commit our anti-war work into the
>> co-opting hands of the Democrats and go do something more interesting.
>>
>> --CGE
>>



       
---------------------------------
Luggage? GPS? Comic books? 
Check out fitting  gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070710/6f47df13/attachment.html