[Platform] statement on palestine

[gary hicks]

hi:
   
  for update, information, etc. -------------------------------------- gh
  ===============================================================
   
    The 12 Myths of Annapolis  Phyllis Bennis  Institute for Policy Studies, 29 November 2007 
      Español
  
 
  
  
   Myth 1) The Annapolis meeting was designed to launch serious new negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians that aimed at ending the occupation and producing a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the region based on a two-state solution. 

In fact, the two main reasons for the conference had virtually nothing to do with Israel or Palestine. The real reasons for convening the conference were 1) to strengthen Arab government support for U.S. strategies in the Middle East, including the war in Iraq and particularly the escalation of pressure aimed at Iran. 2) To provide a photo-op to reframe Condoleezza Rice’s legacy, now largely shaped by her embrace of Israel’s bombardment of Lebanon in 2006, to the legacy of a would-be peacemaker.

  
   Myth 2) The time is right for new talks because, as President Bush said, “Palestinians and Israelis have leaders who are determined to achieve peace.” 

In fact, both the Israeli and Palestinian leaders are so weakened politically, so compromised as legitimate leaders and so unpopular among their own electorates, that they have little or no choice but to follow the demands of the White House. Both Prime Minister Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Abbas were democratically elected, but both of them were chosen as replacements for the powerful and popular icons of national symbolism they served. 

Like his predecessor, Yasir Arafat, Abbas is simultaneously president of the Palestinian Authority and Chairman of the PLO; unlike Arafat, he is not viewed as a hero of the Palestinian national movement and a symbol of Palestinian unity. In his Annapolis speech Abbas mentioned key Palestinian national goals, including UN resolution 194 on the right of return, but his political weakness as well as his long-standing confidence in U.S. backing means he remains unable to insist on those rights; it is unclear whether he will ultimately agree to sign on to a “final” treaty denying key internationally-mandated Palestinian rights to return, to real independence in all of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, to dismantling of the settlements, etc. 

Olmert replaced the right-wing General Ariel Sharon, known as the Butcher of Beirut from his role in the Sabra/Shatila massacre of 1982 and a continuing hero of the Israeli right-wing, when Sharon fell into a coma in January 2006. Olmert’s poll numbers are in the low single digits, and an Israeli criminal court judge had to issue a special hold on Olmert’s anticipated indictment on corruption charges even as his plane was about to take off for Annapolis this week.

  
   Myth 3) The Annapolis conference will provide hope for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank so Hamas supporters will be won over to support Abbas and the new peace process.

The only reference to the continuing U.S.-Israeli boycott and isolation of Gaza that has turned the Gaza Strip into a humanitarian disaster, a huge Israeli-controlled prison with what the World Bank calculates at 87% of Gazans living below the poverty line, came from Abbas’ call “To my people and relatives in the Gaza Strip, you are at the core of my heart.” But even he had nothing to offer them beyond the assertion that “the hours of darkness will end in the face of your resolve and determination. For your insistence on the unity of our people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as one geographical political unit without any divergence, your suffering will end. Right and peace will prevail.” Olmert referred to Gaza only as a place of terrorism and kidnapping. Bush described Gaza as the place where freedom rises, as in “when liberty takes root on the Iraqi soil of the West Bank and Gaza, it will inspire millions across the Middle East who want their societies
 built on freedom and peace and hope.” [yes, that is the accurate quote.] But unfortunately Palestinian children can’t eat Freudian slips.

  
   Myth 4) U.S. presidential “engagement” in Middle East diplomacy is inherently useful; the problem so far has been Bush’s lack of engagement. 

Since 1967 the U.S. has been way too engaged in Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy. The U.S. already provides almost $4 billion/year in economic and military aid to Israel, has just announced an additional new $30 billion gift of military aid to Israel over the next ten years, consistently uses its UN Security Council veto to protect Israel from being held accountable for its violations of international law (half of all U.S. vetoes cast since 1970), is providing $85 million in police/military assistance to the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah while maintaining the devastating complete embargo and isolation of Gaza. That’s engagement. The U.S. needs to engage differently – not more.

  
   Myth 5) At Annapolis the U.S. appropriately recognizes Israel and the Palestinians as two equal players, with equal responsibility for the conflict and equal obligations to compromise. 

This is not a conflict between equal players. The U.S. remains the key power. The “Joint Understanding” read by President Bush at Annapolis states, “implementation of the future peace treaty will be subject to the implementation of the road map, as judged by the United States.” In fact, even the road map’s “Quartet,” the diplomatic fiction that provided political cover for the U.S. by anointing Europe, Russia and the United Nations as back-up singers for Washington’s solo act, was abandoned in Annapolis.

Israel is the occupying power, maintaining its occupation of Palestinian land in violation of scores of UN resolutions calling for an immediate end to the occupation of all of the West Bank, all of Gaza and all of occupied East Jerusalem. Israel is required to abide by – not to negotiate, but to abide by – all the obligations the Geneva conventions and other international laws impose on occupying powers, including the absolute prohibition of settlements, prohibition against collective punishments, and more. The Palestinians are the occupied population, whose protection is the primary obligation of the occupying power and the international community. In 1988 Palestinians made the historic (though largely forgotten) compromise when they gave up their claim to and recognized Israel as a state in 78% of historic Palestine (when even the UN Partition Agreement only assigned Israel 55%). The idea that now Palestinians should be expected to negotiate away additional major
 pieces of the meager 22% of the land that remains, and compromise away their other inalienable rights to self-determination and return, makes a mockery of international law and the international community.

  
   Myth 6) The discussions in Annapolis prove that a “two state solution” remains the only possible and legitimate outcome. 

Creation of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state – in all of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem – remains the mandate of the United Nations and international law, and the official Palestinian position. Formal support for creation of some kind of Palestinian state represents the official positions of Israel and the U.S., along with many other countries. But creation of a viable, contiguous and independent state in all the 1967 territory, as mandated by the UN and international law, would require the dismantling of huge blocs of city-sized settlements and the removal of (or agreement to become non-privileged, ordinary Palestinian citizens by) over 450,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem. This is not just “small and mutually agreed adjustments” to the border. With the settlements continuing to expand, their reality and that of the Apartheid Wall are increasingly making a real two-state solution impossible. What many Israeli
 and U.S. policymakers quietly intend is the anointing of a Palestinian “virtual state” – it would have passports and a full seat at the UN, internet identity and a telephone country code all its own. But it would be made up of Gaza and less than 50% of the West Bank in the form of a set of non-contiguous bantustans linked by Israeli-controlled roads and bridges, with Israel remaining in control of borders, airspace, military and security capacity, and more. 

As creation of a viable Palestinian state becomes less realistic, the alternative of recognizing all of historic Palestine – including what is now Israel as well as the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem – as one country, with equal rights for all its citizens, begins to look like a more realistic option. 

  
   Myth 7) Israeli participation in the Annapolis conference indicates a willingness to make serious new compromises on the long-standing obstacles to a just and lasting peace. 

On settlements: the words “settler” and “settlement” did not appear in Olmert’s speech in Annapolis. Before arriving, there was a high-profile announcement that Israel would refrain from building any “new” settlements in the West Bank; this is complete spin, since the real expansion of the settler population is taking place by expanding the land controlled by and the people populating the existing settlements, not primarily by building new ones.

On Jerusalem: mentioned only as Olmert having come from Jerusalem, and having once been the mayor of Jerusalem; no reference to sharing Jerusalem, ending the occupation of East Jerusalem, Palestinian rights to their capital in Jerusalem, etc.

On Refugees: the words “refugee,” “return,” “rights,” “international law,” “resolution 194” did not appear. Olmert referred in a deliberately obscure reference to “your people who have suffered for many years” and Palestinians who “have been living for decades in camps, disconnected from the environment in which they grew up…” But Olmert, saying he “came here today NOT in order to settle historical accounts between us and you,” did not recognize Israeli responsibility for Palestinian suffering, let alone accept the international law-mandated solution under resolution 194 ensuring the right of the refugees to return. Instead he claimed Israel would “find a proper framework for their future, in the Palestinian state that will be established in the territories agreed upon between us.” 

On Borders: the words “border,” “Wall,” “fence,” “barrier” did not appear.

  
   Myth 8) Arab participation reflects U.S. and Israeli acceptance of the 2002 Arab peace initiative as part of the diplomatic framework. 

In fact, only Abbas even described the actual requirements of the Arab peace initiative – Israel ending occupation to the 1967 borders, refugees, Jerusalem, the occupied Syrian Golan Heights. For Bush and Olmert, it was referenced only in the context of its consequence: IF Israel ended the occupation, recognized the refugees’ right to return, etc., THEN normalization between Israel and the Arab world was possible. Olmert’s speech included a litany of what he thinks about the Arab initiative: he is “familiar with” it, “acknowledges,” “appreciates” the initiative…but no indication he accepts or would abide by it. In fact Olmert addressed the Arab diplomats directly, reminding them that whatever their views,, the Arab governments would have no place at the table. “[E]ven if the Arab peace initiative presents principles based on the Arab narrative, You have no intention of replacing the Palestinians in the negotiations. Please support them; they need it.
 Without your support for compromises there will be no peace.” For Olmert, the Arab governments’ job was to collaborate in Palestinian surrender.

  
   Myth 9) Syria’s participation means Syria is now joining the pro-western anti-Iran contingent in the region.


Syria is a poor and relatively weak country, whose President Bashar al-Assad has never claimed the power and influence of his father, Hafez al-Assad. Despite Syria’s longstanding ties to Iran, it is a key component of the Arab world, and could not afford to insult the Arab League call for participation in Annapolis. Syrian attendance, at a relatively junior level in a partial snub to the U.S. and Israel (and even to Mahmoud Abbas) gets Damascus off the hot-seat with Washington – which continues to hope for being able to wean Syria away from Iran. Syria was able to at least mention the words “Golan Heights” and remind diplomatic listeners that the Arab peace initiative also included ending israel’s occupation of the Golan as a precondition to normalization. And Syrian participation in Annapolis could be viewed as paying a kind of protection money, reducing the influence of the “Syria Next” crowd in Washington.

  
   Myth 10) The speeches given at Annapolis will inspire new commitments.

The Annapolis meeting did not set forth a grandiose set of “confidence-building measures” to launch the process. The pre-Annapolis announcements of the Israeli government featured a high-profile announcement of the release of 450 prisoners (less than 5% of the more than 10,000 Israel continues to illegal hold) and a promise not to build any new settlements. This was a retreat even from the road map’s alleged call for Israel to “freeze all settlement expansion,” meaning no additional building or adding new settlers. In fact real confidence-building would require Israel to at least begin the process of actually dismantling existing settlements. Not simply the tiny symbolic “outposts” which Israel can shut down with little political and no financial cost (though they have not been shut down as promised in the road map) – but a real move to begin dismantling some of the empty or half-finished apartments currently being built throughout the existing city-sized
 illegal settlements such as Ariel or Ma’ale Adumim. That would be a step towards not simply preventing further deterioration, but a step towards serious peace-making. 

  
   Myth 11) The Annapolis conference was based on implementing all relevant UN resolutions. 

The presence of dozens of governments and international organizations at Annapolis gave the conference the appearance of a United Nations-style event. But it was all about style – not substance. In that way it reflected a similar scenario in 1991, when the U.S. orchestrated (ostensibly with Soviet co-sponsorship) the Madrid conference to “launch” new peace talks. A huge glittering international gathering – but the official Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. and Israel, setting the terms for Israeli participation, guaranteed that the sole United Nations representative would be prohibited from speaking. While current UN chief Ban ki-Moon was formally allowed to speak in Annapolis, there was not even the illusion that the world organization, which should be the centerpiece of all international diplomatic efforts on this issue, was to be allowed a serious role.

No UN resolutions were even mentioned in the joint Israeli-Palestinian statement that Bush read to open the conference. Abbas did refer to resolution 194 (ensuring refugees’ the right of return) but it was ignored by the U.S. and Israeli speeches. Olmert did mention 242 and 338, but equated UN resolutions’ authority with that of the April 14, 2004 letter President Bush sent to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon promising U.S. support for Israeli annexation of huge settlement blocs and Israel’s rejection of the right of return. There was no discussion, of course, of Washington’s pattern of veto-threats and veto use in the Security Council that has consistently prevented Israel from being held accountable for its violations of international law.

  
   Myth 12) Annapolis was a failure. 

If we understand Annapolis for what it really was, it may prove to be a great success. (See Myth #1) The Arab regimes can go home with transcripts of their own speeches, whether bluster or statesmanlike, and show their people how they stood up to Israel and the U.S., and how they helped the Palestinians. They can then show more willingness the next time Bush asks them for fly-over rights, for base rights, for political support. And Condoleezza Rice got her photo-ops. Her legacy, too early to say. 

But based on its real, however unacknowledged, goals, Annapolis may turn out to be a great success.

  

So what does it all mean? And what do we do now?

There is another myth that says Annapolis, the latest iteration of U.S.-controlled “peace processes,” represents the epicenter of current Israeli-Palestinian peace-making efforts. That was never true. The framework of this conference, shaped by U.S. global power and unilateralism; Israel’s regional expansionism, militarism and apartheid policies; Arab governments’ repression and militarism; and Palestinian division and weakness, never held out much hope for a just or lasting or comprehensive peace. But that does not mean real peace-making work is not underway. Palestinian civil society, backed by global civil society, a few governments and sometimes the United Nations, are building non-violent movements challenging those realities.

In 2005, Palestinian and global civil society called for creation of a movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, to bring international non-violent economic pressure on Israel to comply with international law. That movement is well underway. The rising global use of the framework of an anti-apartheid movement to challenge Israeli policies of discrimination, moved forward by people like former President Jimmy Carter and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and organizations like the U.S. Campaign to End Israeli Occupation. Israel’s illegal Apartheid Wall faces challenges from global mobilizations and through the direct action of Palestinians, Israelis and internationals at places like the West Bank village of Bi’ilin, where every Friday activists non-violently gather to protest the Wall. Organizations like the U.S. Campaign to End Israeli Occupation, the Stop the Wall Coalition and BADIL in the occupied territories, the International Coordinating Network on Palestine and so
 many others remain engaged in this work.

While U.S. threats and vetoes have largely prevented the Security Council from the central role it should play in this issue, other parts of the United Nations system remain thoroughly engaged. From General Assembly committees protecting the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, to the courageous work of Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories John Dugard, as well as the analysis of former UN representative to the “Quartet” Alvaro de Soto who exposed U.S. support for inter-Palestinian violence in Gaza, the UN remains an important ally. There are campaigns in U.S., European, Brazilian and many other national courts, as well as in the International Court of Justice, to hold Israel accountable for its violations. Those are the places where real peace-making is underway. There are efforts for real justice – unlike whatever “peace” comes out of Annapolis, which is likely to be neither just nor lasting.


  
---------------------------------
    

Phyllis Bennis is a Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies (www.ips-dc.org) and the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam. Her most recent book is Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer. 
  

   
  ===============================================================

Ron Francis <ronwf777 at yahoo.com> wrote:
  The co-chairs statement on Palestine is inconsistent with our platform statement on Palestine and needs to be re-written. The statement reads like one of a person who supports a state for Palestinians and a state for Israelis (two state approach) which the GRP clearly does not. The statement is really not that much different from what the Bush administration calls for as of a few days ago.

The problem with the co-chairs statement is that, like Bush's analysis it fails to look at the conflict in a root cause way. Attention to root cause issues such as the illegal nature of the apartheid nature of Israel (all but admitted by Olmert by the way), and the Right of Return, distinguishes the GRP position and the GPUS position.

Here is the co-chairs statement with my comments inserted in []

"The Green-Rainbow Party does not support calls for the expulsion of Israelis any more than we support calls for the expulsion of Palestinians, and our platform does not call for the destruction of Israel. 

[This is the usual game of the zionists... say that anti-racists are against the existence of the State of Israel when in fact what we oppose is the Jewish preference in the laws and the discrimination against non-Jews. By knee-jerkingly saying that we don't want the destruction of Israel we are fooled into looking as if we support a Jewish State which is how Israel defines itself by the way. What we need to say is that we support equals rights for all Palestinians and Israelis in all of historic Palestine and not get into the false dichotomy of either saying that we do or don't support the existence of the State of Israel - this is a trap that zionists lay out and we just fell into it. Remember that the acceptance of the State of Israel negates the human rights of palestinians. (If you don't understand that then email me and I will explain it). We need to say that we accept the existence of all people in the region and their human rights which is different that saying
that we accept a jewish State. Another way to look at this is to ask: Why don't we accept the existence of the mixed state that was there prior to Al-Nakbah....If we insist on playing the zionist game and want to respond to the "destruction of Israel" charge, then we should state that we oppose the destruction of all people in the region, regardless of their background: this is much different than saying that we oppose the destruction of the State of Israel. Palestinians have been oppressed partly due to the slick use of language by zionists combined with sympathy for anti-Jewish racism; we shouldn't propagate the language trickery of zionists

"Such calls -- no matter who might espouse them -- are contrary to several of the 10 key values that do make up our platform, including non-violence, social justice, and respect for diversity.

[If we are looking for consistency with our 10KV, then many folks would say that the ending of a Jewish-preference State is consistent with our 10KV]


What we do call for is an end to the killing on all sides, including an end to the collective punishment of Palestinians through military and other means by the Israeli government and an end to the collective punishment of Israelis through rocket attacks and suicide bombings by militant opposition groups. What we do call for is an end to the taking of Palestinian land 

[the land of most Palestinians is IN Israel... that is what the conflict is all about !.. by accepting the zionist framework again we seem like we are saying that there is Palestinian land and there is Jewish land in Israel]

and water in the West Bank, an end to the blockade of Gaza, and an end to all attempts to deny both Palestinians and Israelis the right to self-determination and safety.


The only true and lasting solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict will be one that derives from a process in which all the peoples of the region democratically decide their future and agree upon a solution that is acceptable to all. 

[or the solution will derive from the world forcing Israel to end apartheid, as was done in south Africa, and to recognize the human rights of Palestinians, the denial of which precipitated the conflict. This line of discussion is another trick of the zionists in which they want folks to believe that the issue here is just one of zionists and non-zionists just not getting along, and all will be solved if everyone can sit down and talk it out through negotiations.]

We share the hope that Archbishop Desmond Tutu expressed last week for healing and reconciliation that can come only "when everyone who claims to be wholly innocent relinquishes that illusion, when everyone who places absolute blame on another renounces that lie, and when differing stories are told at last as one shared story of human aspiration."

I appreciate the co-chairs effort to respond to charges from the press, as party representatives, but we must note that the issue of Palestine is often subtle, if simple, and it is safer to deny the bogus charges and then refer interested parties to our well crafted convention statement, or the equivalent statement of the GPUS, rather than trying to construct statements that basically confuse the issue (and even worse appear to be two-statish...) when we have clear statements worked out by consensus.

At a minimum the co-chairs need to conclude their statement by including the GRP convention statement.

R. Francis



BillCunningham wrote: Dear Grace,

The Iraq, Palestine, and Sudan statements have certainly disappeared. Moving old material to a back page is one thing. But why are the Iraq, Palestine, and Sudan statements, and they alone, not shown or mentioned even on the back page? Why are they alone "in the process of being archived"? They can be located by searching the site, but when you come to the Palestine statement you can't read it without entering a private code! 

I am not attributing agency for the disappearance, only quoting directly what appeared under your signature in the press (11/23/07).

What are the process problems here?

Our process does not allow proposal(s) to carry over from one meeting to the next. Isn't that why the Sudan proposal(s) dropped off the agenda last summer? This fall, the "sunset" proposal was never discussed at the most recent StateCom meeting, because our two-step agenda process puts less controversial items ahead of the difficult ones. 

I didn't bring up your Lebanon statement since it didn't involve the formal party process. I do feel that a party's identity and politics are developed just as much by candidates and campaigns as by the formal adoption process. But that's another question.

As you know, it was The Bridge that originally published your Lebanon statement. As an editor it is humiliating to now read that it was "a draft statement published without my permission and taken out of context" or that "The piece… that was published as my statement was actually not an accurate nor finished public statement – it was published originally without my permission and was from an email dialogue which was removed from the piece."(10/5/07)

Email correspondence shows that Annie asked if we could print your statement in The Bridge and you agreed, but asked for help to make it work as a letter or press release(7/22/06). I took part in the edit later that day and returned it for comment. I don't remember any complaint about it. I believe Colby posted it on the GRP website, where it remained for a long time. 

This is very, very troubling.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com
>Sent: Jan 13, 2008 1:15 AM
>To: etwee at earthlink.net, yen.yarden at verizon.net
>Cc: sbartone22 at gmail.com, platform at green-rainbow.org
>Subject: Re: [Platform] Donate NOW - build the Green-Rainbow Party into aforce for change!
>
>You know, I wish people would be a little more accurate here. I and Ron 
>proposed a change to the Sudan statement - a new introduction, and it was not 
>that our process did nt work, it's that people chose not to participate. And 
>the statements were not "disappeared" by some sight of hand. 
>
>I am more than happy to restart that proposal if people now want to engage. 
>I did not ask that the statements be removed. I asked for help dealing with 
>an avalanch of attack. Some of it created by people putting forth things as 
>representative of the party that were not. some by people inside the party, 
>many by people outside who made it up as they went along because no one was 
>speaking for the party.
>
>Ask some folks who were around, I was asking for helping addressing the 
>issues raised; since I am not a spokesperson for the party I could not respond. 
>But they will tell you I did not ask for statements to disappear. In fact, as 
>I had cautioned at the time, simply removing stuff did not help me with what 
>I was facing, it actually created other problems.
>
>I did ask that the so-called Lebanon statement be removed. But, as you and 
>some others may remember, that got published without my getting to actually 
>write a finished piece and I complained as soon as I found out it had been 
>published. that is clear to anyone who reads it since it ends abruptly with no 
>real closing.
>
>Please stop ascribing to me both powers I don't have, actions I did not take. 
> And yes, things have gotten said and published by mistake - that is not a 
>reflection on whatever kind of decision-making rules we have. That is a 
>reflection of people not following rules at all - some times it is simply mistakes.
>
>Grace
>In a message dated 1/12/08 11:11:53 PM, etwee at earthlink.net writes:
>
>
>> Yo Elie, thanks for your thoughful response. BTW Kathy will lead the Feb. 
>> MRGRA values discussion on "social justice."
>> 
>> I'm watching the platform discussion; I know it's important but I can't 
>> participate. As you know I am preoccupied with the local.
>> 
>> For me a study of the consensus process AS A MODEL looks like starting with 
>> the conclusion: same size fits all. I would start by reflecting 
>> systematically on our own experience and needs.
>> 
>> How bout that process by which certain of the GRP's more "controversial" 
>> positions were recently altered. I won't go into those positions themselves. But 
>> after all, StateCom and Party Convention adopted those positions properly, 
>> through the GRP consensus process. Thus they became effectively part of the 
>> party platform. Platform Committee take note.
>> 
>> You will recall that efforts to replace the Sudan position began at the 
>> spring 2007 StateCom, but our beloved process effectively prevented this question 
>> from ever coming before either the summer meeting/convention or the fall 
>> meeting. No problem! The question was resolved "off the books." As Grace Ross 
>> wrote in a Worcester newspaper, "I got the Green Rainbow Party policy 
>> statements [Iraq, Palestine, Sudan] pulled" although she admitted "it took too much 
>> time." On Nov. 1 our co-chairs put forth what was, in effect, a new Palestine 
>> position to replace the "disappeared" one that the party Convention had 
>> adopted by consensus and which is still in effect, since it was never properly 
>> altered or revoked.
>> 
>> Why does expediency trump principle in our "values-based" party? (Don't tell 
>> me this is the first time!) Surely it has something to do with our stubborn 
>> attachment to processes and procedures not appropriate to our needs and aims. 
>> But here is a more basic question: what ARE our aims?  
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> >From: Yarden 
>> >Sent: Jan 12, 2008 7:01 PM
>> >To: BillCunningham 
>> >Cc: Platform Committee 
, Suel Bartone <
>> sbartone22 at gmail.com>, Eli Beckerman 
>> >Subject: Re: [Platform] Donate NOW - build the Green-Rainbow Party into 
>> aforce for change!
>> >
>> >Bill,
>> >Thank you for entering the discussion. And I am happy to amplify some
>> >of your observations -- not necessarily in the order that you made them.
>> >
>> >First: "Our party is not yet ready for prime time. Why not?"Â That was
>> >the question that I asked when I read through an article in yesterday's
>> >NYTimes about the 'draftBloomberg' activities. (I'll tack it on because
>> >it does have many entertaining instances of how the media regards money
>> >and presidential electoral activity -- more illuminating than the stuff
>> >I hear in the GRP or GPUS.)Â I highlight with __
>> >
>> >But what got me thinking was near the end. It requires no faith in
>> >pollsters and I quote it:
>> >Lee M. Miringoff, director of the Marist College polls tracking New
>> >York politics, said he does not believe frustration will grow over Mr.
>> >Bloomberg’s denials of interest in the presidency, mainly because there
>> >is not a groundswell of support for him to run.
>> >
>> >“I’m thinking about when Mario Cuomo was hemming and hawing for several
>> >years, and I think that was more frustrating for people because there
>> >was a huge support base for him to do it,” Mr. Miringoff said. “And
>> >that’s not there right now for Bloomberg.”
>> >
>> >A WNBC/Marist poll of 505 registered voters released last week said
>> >__60 percent of New York State voters wanted a strong third political
>> >party__, but __only 27 percent said they thought Mr. Bloomberg should
>> >run__ and only 12 percent thought he would win.
>> >
>> >And having read this in my usually subjective first reading manner, I
>> >reacted by "If 60% of NYS voters do not like the Duopoly, how come they
>> >dont turn to us?" Your comment applies. I also thought, why not? and
>> >I believe that I have a clue of the answer. "They know that we behave
>> >no differently." How do they know it? They read it. If I can see the
>> >ideology of U. S. electoral democracy written all over the arguments
>> >about State delegation apportionment, whether to the National Committee
>> >or the Nominating Convention. But. Why would one expect it to be
>> >otherwise. Political imagination is not that common. The sad thing is
>> >that there is little reason to expect it to be more frequently found in
>> >third parties than in the duopoly parties with their gigantic
>> >advertising budgets. If I seek the stimulus of visionary rhetoric, I
>> >can get a better charge from Obama, than anyone I've heard in the GPUS.
>> >Â On the other hand Huckabee or Paul can indulge populist fraud much
>> >better than we can. We are in no position to grow by virtue of the
>> >dissatisfaction of the U. S. public with the current political
>> >alternatives.
>> >
>> >On Saturday, January 12, 2008, at 04:09Â PM, BillCunningham wrote:
>> >
>> >> It might be useful to ask "Who is responsible" rather than "Who is to
>> >> blame."
>> >>
>> >> One of our Ten Key Values refers to personal and global responsibility.
>> >>
>> >> I believe that everyone has a share in responsibility for what's
>> >> wrong, (and perhaps for what's right) with the world. Clearly not all
>> >> have an equal share. Greater power and wealth carry with them greater
>> >> responsibility. But no matter how weak or poor I am, however small my
>> >> own share, my own responsibility remains intact.
>> >>
>> >> We, as a party, must assume our responsibility and focus on that,
>> >> since only we have the ability to change ourselves and our party, so
>> >> that it may undertake its responsibilities effectively. You and I have
>> >> the ability and responsibility to do this.
>> >Yes, and here a fake egalitarian ideology dominates -- within the Party
>> >as much as outside it -- "All men are created equal" -- so what!  
>> >Inequality is the social truth that is manifest in 'privilege.'Â Some
>> >of us -- in the GRP -- are more privileged than others. How do we use
>> >it? The sources of privilege are many, and some have disadvantages
>> >attached. One of the our greatest wastes derives from our inability to
>> >make use of the diversity that we already have; and this appears most
>> >strongly in the resentful behaviors demonstrated toward the people
>> >whose usefulness should be maximized. The culturally determined
>> >emulative behaviors, competition for status, and personal rivalry are
>> >wasteful and unfortunately common. Instead of offerring strength to
>> >each other we offer sympathy.
>> >
>> >> A good example of what I mean is our ability and responsibility to
>> >> clarify our ideas, including the words we use to talk about our
>> >> values, platform, and political strategy.
>> >>
>> >> I think it is a profound mistake to equate our Ten Key Values to our
>> >> "platform." Some folks do, though. Some say that all we should require
>> >> of our candidates and elected officials is that they subscribe to
>> >> these values. To me that is about as clear and useful to the voters
>> >> (and ourselves) as saying "together we can" "morning in America" or
>> >> "hope for change."
>> >I believe that you have a good idea of how important I find the 10KV,
>> >as a point of departure for critical scrutiny, and the development of
>> >ecological politics. Which reminds me that Joel Kovel, who used to
>> >teach at Bard College, a onetime Green Party candidate in NY, will be
>> >in town promoting his book on how to overcome Zionism. We could invite
>> >him to speak on his main subject which he call EcoSocialism. For many
>> >people in our Party the 10KV are a fetish, and not of more use then the
>> >Pledge of Allegiance. But that does not mean that some people cannot
>> >find other uses for this.
>> >
>> >> Our party is not yet ready for prime time. Why not? We are part of
>> >> this world and this country, too. We are part of the problem—the part
>> >> that we have the greatest ability and responsibility to do something
>> >> about—so that we may finally become part of the solution.
>> >I agree that we have to do something about ourselves. Dan Melnechuk is
>> >undertaking to do organize a study on consensus procedures and
>> >decision-making. One of the items he wants us to read was put out by
>> >the WRL. It immediately occurred to me that the difficulties that we
>> >have with consensual decision-making has little to do with confusion
>> >about goals, about who we are, and very little to do with procedures or
>> >rules.
>> >Elie Yarden
>> >MRGRA
>> >
>> >
>> >*******************************************************
>> >
>> >Calls Grow for Bloomberg to Make Up His Mind
>> >
>> >By DIANE CARDWELL and RAY RIVERA
>> >Published: January 11, 2008
>> >
>> >Nearly every day a tiny new development trickles out from the stealth
>> >presidential campaign of Michael R. Bloomberg , the billionaire mayor
>> >of New York.
>> >
>> >He has talked with Chuck Hagel and Sam Nunn , potential running mates.
>> >He has delivered a tart critique of the presidential field. He is
>> >conducting intricate polling to test his appeal in all 50 states.
>> >
>> >Mr. Bloomberg’s dalliance with the idea of running for president has
>> >stretched on and on, with his enthusiastic approval despite the public
>> >denials. But even before actually entering the contest, Mr. Bloomberg
>> >may have already risked losing something: people’s patience.
>> >
>> >The political parlor game — Will he run? When will he decide? How much
>> >could he spend? — that has so delighted Mr. Bloomberg is suddenly
>> >sparking a backlash. Editorial pages from The Wall Street Journal to
>> >The New York Post, The Village Voice and The New Yorker have taken him
>> >to task. Members of the administration have been rolling their eyes and
>> >referring to Kevin Sheekey, Mr. Bloomberg’s political architect, as the
>> >deputy mayor for presidential politics.
>> >
>> >And a recent poll conducted by Quinnipiac University found that 61
>> >percent of New Yorkers thought Mr. Bloomberg had a “moral obligation”
>> >to serve out his full term. The survey, of 1,162 New York City voters,

=== message truncated ===

       
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.