[statecom-discuss] Re: [adcom] another draft gr response to therecent round of terror

[Ron Francis]

Just got home to read all of these emails.
   
  On the length of the statement:
  I don't think it really matters how long it is because I don't think that it will be published anyhow.  it will likely land on our Website and nowhere else.  If it's long then it's long... we can put some subtitles in it to make our main points if we are really concerned about mainstream media coverage.
   
  As to the urgency of the satement:
  Also, I'm afraid that there isn't really any rush.   The atrocities happening in Lebanon and Palestine are the result of a long-term failure of the US peace and justice movement to deal with Zionism.  We can't stop what the zionist are doing now:  we need to plan for a long-term movement to defeat zionism
   
  As to the substance of the statements, I prefer Bill's statement so far.  It has clear short sentences and doesn't have much rhetoric.  But honestly I don't really care what statement we use, they are mainly similar and all that anyone will possibly remember anyhow is tha the GRP opposed Israeli aggression, and that is sufficient for know.
   
  using the word terrorism:
  I don't like using the term "terrorism" since it is a meaningless term and we just legitimize it's use by the mainstream media when we use it.  Notice how freely the media uses this term "terrorism".  It is because they want to promote a simple analysis that says that anyone they choose to label as a "terrorist" is evil and can be attacked justifiably.  Let's not fall into that trap... we are just making the problem worse when we call Israel's actions State terrorism.  Let's call it what it is: violations of international law that constitute war crimes: war crimes is a well defined term and not just some random expression that can be applied to anything ( a war crime is defined unequivocably as a Grave Breach of the 4th Geneva convention and the word Grave is even defined).
   
  as to using the term Israel for the land:
  it's not acceptable and acknowledges the legitimacy of the Zionist Project.  Let's call the land exactly what it is:  a land currently called Israel that was known as palestine prior to 1948.
   
  as to criticizing the resistance:
  we should state that we oppose actions that are violations of international law (attacks on noncombatants) and point out that our prime responsibility and focus, as US residents, is to take responsibility for what the US government is doing: giving arms for Israel's atrocities.  We should further state that the vilence in the Middle East is a symptom of the problem.  The problem itself is zionist and apartheid policies that forcibly displaced Palestinians from their homes in 1948.
   
  I will edit Bill's statement (next email) with the above ideas in mind and hope that we can reach some sort of consensus on it soon
   
  If we can't reach a quick consensus, it will not be the end of the world:  Our party is already on record as supporting Palestinian refugees in both Lebanon, West bank, G aza, and everywhere else.  We can just reissue that statement if necessary with the add-on that Israel's current actions in Lebanon are further reasons to impose economic sanctions on Israel.
   
  Ron
   
   
  

Merelice <merelice at gmail.com> wrote:
  OH my, I didn't expect to come home late this evening to this
discussion. (I did collect 30 signatures today, however, so maybe I'm
justified in spending some time on this discussion.) Though how
coherent I can be at this hour might be questionable.

Let's distinguish between venting and communicating. Colby is right;
the statement is too long, covers too much, and isn't clearly focused.
It might make us feel good, but does it communicate? Also, given that
the situation changes almost hourly, it's a challenge to make one or
two cogent points.

I believe that what started the CURRENT string of events was the
stupidity with which the U.S. and Isreal responded to the
democratically elected Hamas victory. The possibility of engaging
rather than demonizing Hamas was an opportunity lost.

One thing I liked about the Michigan Green statement to the national
Greens (that Owen forwarded to us) is that it sounded like the Green
Party because it referred to the Key Value of non-violence. It's one
thing to defend the RIGHT to self-defense and to share the utter
frustration and anger the Palestinians (and Lebanese) deservedly feel;
it's another to pretend that the method of "self-defense" that some
use makes sense or is the way to achieve peace. Israel's overwhelming
fire-power and insane and immoral use of it are a given consequence.
Retaliation on either side leads to escalation, not peace.

I believe the statement should come from the GRP. Let the candidates
determine their own strategies and their own timing. The national
Green Party is currently positioning itself as the electoral arm of
the peace movement. That general approach distinguishes Green
candidates from the rest of the field and would be an appropriate
point to make in decrying the Globe ad and setting us apart, without
referring to specific candidates.

I question people's sense of urgency about this. Yes, getting
something out would be appropriate. But getting something out that
doesn't reflect party values and reinforces inaccurate views of what
we stand for makes no sense at all. Fair minded people really can be
educated and persuaded, and will be more likely to respond to a
humanitarian tone that shows some compassion for people's fears all
around. We're trying to communicate in an environment of intense
pro-Israel propaganda; so we need to take a step-by-step approach that
turns each of our statements into an educational moment. Otherwise,
we're spitting into the wind and not getting the results we seek.

Regarding the term, Israel; one approach would be to phrase things in
a way so the statement refers to Zionists or Israelis instead. Using
"historical Palestine" may cover a couple of millenia, but the fact
is, the area could also be called "historical Judah" and "historical
Israel" if you go back far enough. Another possibility might be to
refer to Israel/Palestine. That has the advantage of making Israel
supporters take note that the land is also known as Palestine.
Merelice
_______________________________________________
statecom-discuss mailing list
statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss