[Peace-discuss] Limits of allowable debate

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

>["It's not what you do / But the way that you do it," sing liberal
pro-Israel 
>groups.  In fact these groups are observing Chomsky's maxim: "The smart way
to 
>keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of
acceptable 
>opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage
the 
>more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's
free 
>thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are

>being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate." --CGE]

Funny; but that seems to apply to most if not all areas of human behavior
and conduct whatever the enterprise, topic, or issue.  It can be said about
science, about academia, about social organizations, about activist groups,
and about the arts.  Even you practice and abide by it in your everyday
life, in your political life, and even on this list.

Having noted that, I will say that there is nothing wrong in pointing it out
when and wherever it takes place as well as describing what those limits are
for a given enterprise; where one goes astray is when one believes that
there are areas and undertakings where it is not the rule or norm.  Yes
every such context will have its occasional breaks from the norm; we call
those breaks "revolutions."  It is what Thomas Kuhn describes in his
relatively old book, The Scientific Revolution, with respect to the
enterprise of science.  The arts are no different; so why would one be
surprised to find it true of organized socio-political and economic
behaviors.  Those who tend to break the boundaries on a consistent and
regular basis are considered crazy, nut cases who belong in and usually are
put in an insane asylum if they become too rambunctious; otherwise they are
ostracized and drummed out of the community or otherwise not allowed to
participate in the debate in any meaningful way.

-----Original Message-----
From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G.
Estabrook
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 11:54 AM
To: peace-discuss
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Limits of allowable debate

["It's not what you do / But the way that you do it," sing liberal
pro-Israel 
groups.  In fact these groups are observing Chomsky's maxim: "The smart way
to 
keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of
acceptable 
opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage
the 
more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's
free 
thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are 
being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate." --CGE]


	Will Obama, lawmakers listen to liberal pro-Israel groups'
	criticism of Gaza operation?
	By Eric Fingerhut . December 30, 2008

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- In the first sign of a post-election struggle to set the

American Jewish community's Middle East agenda, a quartet of liberal
pro-Israel 
advocacy groups is criticizing Jerusalem's decision to launch retaliatory 
attacks against Gaza.

J Street, Americans for Peace Now, Brit Tzedek v'Shalom and the Israel
Policy 
Forum all issued statements defending Israel's right to strike Hamas 
installations in Gaza but saying, with varying degrees of forcefulness, that

such actions will be counterproductive and damage Israel's security in the
long 
run. In their statements, they called for intervention by the United States
and 
the international community  to restore a cease-fire between Israel and
Hamas.

In addition to issuing a statement, J Street organized a petition that calls
for 
"immediate and strong U.S.-led diplomatic efforts to urgently reinstate a 
meaningful ceasefire that ends all military operations, stops the rockets
aimed 
at Israel and lifts the blockade of Gaza." The organization's online
director, 
Isaac Luria, sent out a message Tuesday saying that J Street was already
citing 
the 14,000 signatures collected as of Tuesday in conversations with 
President-elect Obama's transition team and Congress.

Two days earlier Luria sent an e-mail message under the heading "Gaza: Stop
the 
Violence," in which he started out by declaring that the "Israeli Defense
Forces 
struck the Gaza Strip, leaving hundreds dead and wounded -- pushing the 
long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict further down a path of
never-ending 
violence." In the message, which did not mention that the bulk of
Palestinian 
fatalities were Hamas militants, Luria stated that "neither Israelis nor 
Palestinians have a monopoly on right or wrong," before calling on the
incoming 
Obama administration to "lead an early and serious effort to achieve a 
comprehensive diplomatic resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian and
Arab-Israeli 
conflicts."

Representatives of J Street and the other three groups say it is difficult
to 
gauge how much resonance their message is having in Washington circles,
because 
Congress is in recess and the new administration is still three weeks away
from 
taking office . But, according to J Street's executive director, Jeremy
Ben-Ami, 
even if the groups fail to influence U.S. decision-making this time around, 
speaking out is a "really important first step" in sparking a discussion in
the 
Jewish community and the wider political world.

"Part of our role in this is to create that space" and "say right up front
this 
is an action we're going to stand up and question," Ben-Ami told JTA. "We're

going to question whether this is the right strategy."

"This is a test to see whether there is a need and support" for that
viewpoint, 
he added.

In his statement over the weekend, Ben-Ami said that " real friends of
Israel 
recognize that escalating the conflict will prove counterproductive,
igniting 
further anger in the region and damaging long-term prospects for peace and 
stability."

The positions staked out by J Street and the other liberal groups fly in the

face of the unabashed support for Israel's Gaza operation offered by the
Jewish 
community's two major public-policy umbrella groups, the Jewish Council for 
Public Affairs and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish 
Organizations. Individual member groups of the two umbrella organizations
have 
offered their own statements of support, as well.

J Street's immediate criticism of the Israeli strikes stood in sharp
contrast 
even to the Meretz Party, a standard-bearer of the Israeli Left, which
offered 
support for the initial round of attacks, before calling for a ceasefire.

Ben-Ami will have a chance to take J Street's message directly to Jewish 
communal activists from across the country when they gather in Washington at
the 
end of February for the annual policy plenum of the Jewish Council for
Public 
Affairs. The JCPA, an umbrella organization that brings together national
Jewish 
organizations, the synagogue movements and dozens of local Jewish
communities to 
formulate policy positions, has invited Ben-Ami to participate in a panel 
discussion on Israel advocacy.

Brit Tzedek's executive director, Diane Balser, said that she saw the
statements 
as a "step" in forging "greater momentum" for a stronger alternative Jewish 
voice on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "My hope would be to coordinate
more 
and more," she said, particularly with an Obama administration that is seen
as 
more sympathetic to their viewpoint than the Bush administration was.

Ben-Ami, though, said he didn't think J Street and other like-minded groups 
would have much impact on any kind of congressional reaction to the Hamas 
operation when the House and Senate return to work next week. "I would be 
shocked if what came out of Congress was anything but a ringing endorsement
of 
Israel," he said, noting that in the immediate early days of a military 
operation the typical and understandable reaction is strong backing of the 
Jewish state.

Indeed, one of the most prominent of the 41 candidates endorsed this fall by
J 
Street's political action committee, U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.),
released 
a statement strongly backing Israel's decision and making no mention of
American 
intervention.

"It is unconscionable for anyone to expect that the Israeli government or
any 
other government for that matter, to sit idly as thousands of deadly rockets

rain down on their cities and threaten the well-being and security of their 
citizens," Wexler said. "I urge the international community to join the
United 
States in denouncing the daily terrorist acts carried out by Hamas and
support 
Israel's right to self-defense and security."

Instead, Ben-Ami said, J Street hopes to have an impact on the Middle East 
debate six to 12 months down the road, via congressional and administration 
action that focuses on achieving a political settlement.

The director of the Israel Policy Forum's Washington office, M.J. Rosenberg,

said the emergence of J Street could add a new dynamic to the work of dovish

pro-Israel groups.

"Because they raised money for people's campaigns, they have a different 
position vis-a-vis members of Congress," he said, compared to a organization

like IPF, which focuses on providing information and lobbying.

But Rosenberg said that while seeing four groups issue somewhat similar 
statements draws additional attention to their viewpoint, he downplayed a 
suggestion that it represented the first salvo of a more forceful effort to 
spread that message. "What we've been doing is the same," he said. "The 
difference is the situation is worse" and "efforts might intensify because
this 
is so bad."

Americans for Peace Now spokesman Ori Nir agreed with Rosenberg that the
recent 
statements did not mark the launch of a formal campaign, adding that the
Gaza 
operation was not a particularly good vehicle to start such an effort. "We
don't 
view the issue of the Israeli operation as a black-and-white, clear-cut
issue," 
Nir said. "It wouldn't serve as a strong rallying cause because it is so
nuanced."

But Nir said that Americans for Peace Now was strategizing with like-minded 
organizations on possible joint congressional action; he added that the
group 
sent out an action alert to more than 10,000 activists urging them to write
to 
President Bush and President-elect Obama on the issue. "We're reminding
people 
that since the objective here is political, military force alone cannot
achieve" 
the desired outcome, Nir said. "There needs to be a diplomatic component."

A top communal Jewish leader questioned the dovish groups' positions. The 
director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, wondered why IPF's 
statement first called for an end to hostilities before commenting on the 
situation and defending Israel's right to strike. "I find that skewed," he
said, 
because Hamas didn't listen to calls to halt its rocket fire in recent
weeks.

Foxman rejected J Street's statement that "there is no military solution to
what 
is fundamentally a political conflict," saying it "does a disservice" by
lumping 
Hamas into the general Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"They're not interested in negotiating," Foxman said. "They're a terrorist 
organization. Why should they be treated by our community as a legitimate 
partner to negotiations?"

http://jta.org/news/article/2008/12/30/1001894/liberal-pro-israel-groups-cri
ticize-gaza-operation

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