[statecom-discuss] Carter at Brandeis.

[Betty H. Zisk]

I have not spoken out very often of late but I feel stongly about one of
Grace's main pts. WHY are we wasting all of our energy on debating something
like Carter's position or his right to appear at Brandeis? Why are we
arguing about platform issues ad nauseum (like our position on Israel and
our pro Palestinian stance) when we should be setting out policy positions
of our own, espec on domestic issues where we might have a chance to
influence people? It is wonderful to be so righteous. It isnt going to make
one bit of difference. I remain a loyal GRP member but not for long if this
keeps up. I agree with Grace that we need to honor party position. But I ask
us to move on beyond that. For example, what is our position on Deval's
signing on to the New Eng pact on energy policy? I like it for its bold
rejection of Romney hesitation but I have reservations about energy trading
of pts. But I wld like a discussion here and sane advice. I dont see much
coming from GRP of late and that really saddens me. I fell in love with
Greens in 1986; I am increasingly sad at all the posturing. But still have
faith I guess. Betts Zisk

-----Original Message-----
From: statecom-discuss-bounces at green-rainbow.org
[mailto:statecom-discuss-bounces at green-rainbow.org]On Behalf Of
gracegrnrnbw at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 10:33 AM
To: jvwalshmd at gmail.com; jstein at massmed.org;
statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org; ronwf777 at yahoo.com;
davidrolde at comcast.net
Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] Carter at Brandeis.


  John - you're not responding to my suggestion below, right? You're
responding to Ron & others? We do need to honor the party's informed
position too - that took time and fire as well....

 I think it is possible to be a little more nuanced - we support how far he
has come and ask him to come farther - its not like he is going to end up
more under fire for stepping out a little farther?

 As for the divide and conquer, you're usually the one harping about how we
have to clearly separate ourselves from Democrats so everyone inthe public
does not get confused. Now you want to do something more nuanced cause you
like Carter and appreciate what he is trying to do.

 Is there any chance that people in this party could spend less time worried
about where the Democrats are and more time standing up for our values and
assume that the public are not stupid and they (like each of us) will figure
out what we stand for.

 I actually agree that actions should speak louder than words - but that
means we actually need to ACT so people know we exist at all. and we have to
act for things as well as against them so people know what we stand FOR.

 which is why I suggested letters to the editor where we have some control
about getting out a more nuanced stand on something -

 Love, grace (note: the public had no problem figuring out that I was real
unlike Patrick and Healey and large segments figured out that I stood for
issues of working people, for instance, when they did not... And that was by
standing FOR things and just being visible a lot!)


 -----Original Message-----
 From: jvwalshmd at gmail.com
 To: gracegrnrnbw at aol.com; jstein at massmed.org;
statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org; ronwf777 at yahoo.com;
davidrolde at comcast.net
 Sent: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 7:55 AM
 Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] Carter at Brandeis.

  PLEASE POST.
 Well I guess Carter's words speak louder than his actions.

 Also inside Israel there is discrimination making Arabs second class
 citizens, no doubt. But in the West Bank, there is separation as
 between bantustans and the main country of S. Africa or as between
 white areas and black townships.

 Every part of the peace and justice complex is finding a reason not to
 support Carter. On the right wing of it, they are in thrall to the
 Lobby; and on the "Left" they (we) find fault with Carter's past
 actions or his imperfect description of Israel -valid but a frail reed
 on which to throw away a political gift. And in either case, the
 Lobby wins. Divide and Conquer.
 jw

 On 1/16/07, gracegrnrnbw at aol.com <gracegrnrnbw at aol.com> wrote:
 >
 > I was unaware of Carter not admitting to apartheid inside the formal
 > boundaries of Israel. That makes it pretty clear that we as a Party can
not
 > back him.
 >
 > that is quite different than his or anyone's needing support - I suspect
he
 > does - for even stepping this far outside the fold - I actuallythink a
well
 > crafted letter to the editor saying why we support the pieces of his
 > position that we do, saying it is good that someone as recognized as him
has
 > come as far as he has and asking him publically to come farther - it woul
 > dbe a way to educate and get listened to by many who probably just
figured
 > out something is rwrong with Israel for the first time tolearn osm more -
 > and publically asking him to step out farther would be very appropriate I
 > think - Love, grace
 >
 >
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: ronwf777 at yahoo.com
 > To: jvwalshmd at gmail.com;
 > statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org;
 > NeedToKnow at green-rainbow.org; jstein at massmed.org; davidrolde at comcast.net;
 > danthbagelman at msn.com; isis at isisdesign.com; gracegrnrnbw at aol.com
 > Sent: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 8:13 AM
 > Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] Carter at Brandeis.
 >
 >
 > I agree that there would be no harm in helping even a US president if it
 > were
 > politically possible. Carter is being attacked and he does need support
from
 > "liberal" zionists. We however are not liberal zionists or even close to
it.
 >
 > If someone wants to introduve a motion at the spring Statecom to go for a
 > two
 > state model and sell Palestinians down the river and violate our own Ten
Key
 > Values, then someone can try that....
 >
 > Our Party is explicitly against a Jewish Priviledge (racist) state
however
 > and
 > therefore cannot support him. Individuals can do what they want to do but
 > our
 > party supports the right of return and is opposed to the internal
apartheid
 > laws
 > in Israel (which Carter accepts and even goes furhter to call Israel a
 > democracy
 > ! ... note the US was a democracy when slaves had 3/5 and women could not
 > vote
 > at all !). Our position is distinctly different than Carter's.
 >
 > We can call Carter and ask him if he is willing to change his position to
 > be
 > in compliance with human rights and international law.
 >
 > If he is, then we can support him, otherwise se can't do it as a party.
If
 > individuals want to do it then that is fine.
 >
 > ron
 >
 >
 >
 > John Walsh <jvwalshmd at gmail.com> wrote:
 > PLEASE POST:
 > Carter does not need our support? On that I disagree with David and Ron.
 >
 > I have googled Jimmy Carter and upon going through 11 pages of google
 > refs, I find only TWO that support him, even mildly, and the rest are
 > attacks!! The only mainstream media publication to run a favorable
 > review of Carter's book is The Nation - and they, true to form, only
 > did so after the book was over two months on the best seller list.
 > The NYT and the Washington Post both did a real smear on the book when
 > they reviewed it, with the NYT reviewing it late. The nasty review
 > for the Post was done by Jeffrey Goldberg who is a citizen of Israel,
 > and the Lobby has insisted that it be posted in full on the Amazon.com
 > site where one buys Carter's book. A petition is now being circulated
 > to Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon, protesting this. The petition can
 > be found at:
 > http://www.petitiononline.com/Amazon07/
 >
 > I think Ron and David underestimate the power of the Israel Lobby.
 > The empire does not control its "client" in this case. See James
 > Petras's book, "The Power of Israel in the United States." The tail
 > may not wag the dog, but the cabal steers the empire.
 >
 > And just as a footnote, so far AFSC and Mass Peace Action have been
 > non-commital on this demonstration so far.
 > What the StateCom will do is not clear to me. But I wish it good
 > luck. I will be at Brandeis on January 23 by 3:300 for Carter's
 > talk, 4:30-5:30 at the Shapiro gym, part of the Gosman Center. At the
 > least members of Jewish Voice for Peace and the Antiwar League will be
 > there with a lot of anti-Carter demonstrators sure to face us.
 > jw
 > p.s. For the record I agree that in fact Carter goes easy on Israel
 > and that his adventure in Afghanistan is one of the crimes of the
 > century. But that is dog bites man whereas Carter's properly tagging
 > Israel with Apartheid is man biting dog - and quite useful for the
 > antiwar movement. Given the power of the Lobby, this goes way beyond
 > the question of Palestine and has a great bearing on war or peace in
 > the future.
 >
 >
 >
 > On 1/15/07, Ron Francis wrote:
 > > Our party has a statement at the national and state level that
explicitly
 > rejects Jimmy's Carter's conception of justice in Palestine, so we can't
 > endorse
 > the former president, who also ( I agree with David) doesn't need our
 > support.
 > >
 > > We should circulate our statement and the national statement at the
event
 > or
 > write a counter to Carter pointing where he is inconsistent with
 > international
 > law and human rights law.
 > >
 > > I would see the event as an outreach opportunity more than anything
else
 > since
 > people supporting carter are probably folks who might be sympathetic to a
 > Green
 > Rainbow message.
 > >
 > > Ron
 > >
 > > David Rolde wrote:
 > > Jimmy Carter is a Zionist. He uses the term "apartheid" only to
 > > describe the Zionist regime's actions in 1967-occupied Palestine (the
 > > "West Bank" and "Gaza strip" ). He says that there is no apartheid
 > > in 1948-occupied Palestine (what he calls "Israel"). He says that
 > > Arabs have full civil rights in 1948-occupied Palestine. This is not
 > > true. Most land in 1948-occupied Palestine is reserved by the
 > > Zionist regime for "Jews-only". Non-Jewish Arab Palestinians are
 > > usually not allowed to buy land or build houses. The Zionist regime
 > > is demolishing Arab Palestinian homes and villages within 1948-
 > > occupied Palestine as well as in 1967-occupied Palestine. There are
 > > numerous racist apartheid laws in effect within 1948-occupied
 > > Palestine including a ban on mixed marriages. Non-Jewish Arab
 > > Palestinian refugees who were driven out of the country by the
 > > zionists are not allowed to return to their homes anywhere in
 > > Palestine. Carter ignores all this and limits his criticism of
 > > "Israel" to only the regime's actions in 1967-occupied Palestine.
 > > While he does use the word "apartheid" he then proposes an apartheid
 > > solution where most non-Jewish Arab Palestinians would be segregated
 > > to a small portion of Palestine and where the majority of the country
 > > would still be under Jewish-supremacist apartheid laws.
 > >
 > > It's true that other more-rightwing Zionists are attacking Carter.
 > > But why should we get involved in a dispute between different
 > > factions of Zionists? I think if we do then we must be careful to be
 > > nuanced about it and stress that Carter isn't going far enough, and
 > > that we are supporting a free dialogue about Palestine rather than
 > > supporting Carter uncritically. He is after all one of the most
 > > prominent members of the Democratic Party, the former president of
 > > the U.S. He has plenty of mainstream support and does not need or
 > > deserve our uncritical support. He has said some good things. He
 > > has criticized "Israel" more than many other Dems have. He did
 > > rightly criticize the Clinton administration for their proxy war
 > > against Sudan. But he has also done bad things such as starting the
 > > war in Afghanistan when he was president, starting the cold war
 > > against Iran when he was president, and supporting the concept of a
 > > Jewish-supremacist apartheid state in Palestine even if he does wish
 > > it were a "kinder, gentler" Jewish-supremacist apartheid state.
 > >
 > > - David
 > >
 > > On Jan 14, 2007, at 9:41 PM, John Walsh wrote:
 > >
 > > > PLEASE POST:
 > > > WILL GRP TAKE THE LEAD ON THIS?
 > > > I have sent the message below to a number of organizations.
 > > > Interestingly so far I have had only two responses although I only
 > > > sent it on Friday so we shall see.
 > > > One came from Mass Peace Action with no comment and the other from
 > > > Progressive Dems of America which expressed a guarded interest.
 > > > Where will the GRP stand on this? Carter is a Dem who has been
 > > > shunned by the Dem establishment for his position. For those who want
 > > > to make alliances with shunned and isolated Dems, here is your
chance.
 > > > What do you think?
 > > > jw
 > > > *******
 > > > Friends in Peace,
 > > > I am inquiring how many of the organizations that you represent will
 > > > be coming to demonstrate in support of Jimmy Carter when he speaks at
 > > > Brandeis (tentatively on January 23) on "Palestine, Peace Not
 > > > Apartheid." I ask for two reasons:
 > > >
 > > > First, Carter is being attacked from every side with few standing up
 > > > to defend him. He has largely been left to defend himself from the
 > > > outrageous attacks by the neocons, the mainstream media, AIPAC and
the
 > > > rest of the Lobby. He is courageous enough to tell the truth, and he
 > > > should not be left undefended. (Very few peace groups have defended
 > > > Carter and those that have are for the most part very quiet in their
 > > > defense.)
 > > >
 > > > Second, as Carter said in his op-ed in the Globe:
 > > > "As recommended by the Hamilton-Baker report, renewed negotiations
 > > > between Israel and the Palestinians are a prime factor in promoting
 > > > peace in the region. Although my book concentrates on the Palestinian
 > > > territories, I noted that the report also recommended peace talks
with
 > > > Syria concerning the Golan Heights. Both recommendations have been
 > > > rejected by Israel's prime minister."
 > > > It is pretty clear from this that American and much more Iraqi blood
 > > > is being shed in Iraq in part because of the intransigence of Israel.
 > > >> From this it is hard for anyone genuinely concerned about ending the
 > > > war on Iraq to say that the question of Palestine and the
machinations
 > > > of AIPAC are of no concern.
 > > >
 > > > So where do we all stand? I plan to be at Brandeis to support Carter.
 > > > Will I be able to join your organization in so doing? Will you be
 > > > there and will you organize to get people out for the event?
 > > >
 > > > I hope to hear from you. Thanks.
 > > > Best,
 > > > John V. Walsh
 > > > p.s. Please send this on to other organizations.
 > > > _______________________________________________
 > > > statecom-discuss mailing list
 > > > statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
 > > >
 > http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
 > >
 > > _______________________________________________
 > > statecom-discuss mailing list
 > > statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
 > >
 > http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
 > >
 > > _______________________________________________
 > > statecom-discuss mailing list
 > > statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
 > >
 > http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
 > >
 >
 > _______________________________________________
 > statecom-discuss mailing list
 > statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
 > http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
 >
 >
 > ________________________________
 > Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security
 > tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the
web,
 > free AOL Mail and more.
 >

________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and security
tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web,
free AOL Mail and more.
_______________________________________________
statecom-discuss mailing list
statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss