{news} My vote (Re: Changing My Vote from "Abstain" to "Yes")

[Amy Vas Nunes]

Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:56:52 -0700
From: sanda at greens.org
To: usgp-int at gp-us.org
Subject: Re: USGP-INT My vote (Re: Changing My Vote from "Abstain" to "Yes")

I have been asked to submit my vote.  I appreciated that my vote was of significant enough value to some, that the request was made.  

I have no doubts that Israel's governments treatment of the Palestinian people is totally unacceptable and there can be no call for equal treatment for Palestinian attacks on Israel as the balance of power is so greatly skewed.  I may not be saying this well...others have said it so much better before me.  I appreciated reading of Alan's concern about the proposal, but his deciding to change his vote from abstain to yes as a support for the IC.  I also share some of Richard's concerns and his reasons to change his vote for abstain to yes to support the IC, and as a protest as he is "ashamed at the rancor demonstrated by some Greens."  I am concerned about the rancor demonstrated by some Greens (not just in this situation, but all over the party), the lack of trust, and the lack of a new model of communication that I feel we should be embodying.  However, although I certainly would not call this committee "inactive," and rather have found it to be one of the most active committees in GPUS, and one in which there has generally been civil communication, I still have lots of concerns about the policies and procedures of this committee, do not feel the recent election was properly vetted, have some concern with the committee acting too autonomously in the past, and do not feel the IC should be taking any action until its P&Ps are written and approved.  I do think the IC should have taken the responsibility to do that before it was pushed to do so, and should continue with that procedure until complete.  For that reason, I do not feel I can vote yes, no, or abstain at this time.

I began composing a lengthy email to this committee on some of these issues about a week ago...unfortanately, despite spending hours on it, it did not get past my draft folder.  I will try to find time to get back to it soon, so that I can better share my thinking.  Please don't assume that I am either agreeing.... or disagreeing, with Mike F, or disagreeing...or agreeing, with his strongest detractors on this committee.  Whether good or bad, or both, I do seem to have the ability to look at more than one POV at a time.


On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 2:13 PM, alanisa green <alanisagreen at yahoo.com> wrote:


Hi everyone.

I vote yes. I retain the reservations I've previously expressed.

As I noted earlier, there is much in the statement I agreee with. I continue to be concerned about whether the GP, or the IC as its "action arm" on this issue, will have the will and/or capacity to carry out the Resolution if passed. Much more importantly, at least to me, I continue to be deeply troubled about our Party taking the "lead" on this issue internationally. This especially in view of an absence of bi-lateral, or multi-lateral discusssions between us and other Green Parties on the issue.

I want to be clear on this: I support BDS, and did so at the ETO conference in Dearborn. Israel's Occupation must end. The Palestinian people exist, and their full rights, including the right to a National State (2 state solution), or if they and the Israeli people wish, a bi-national State (1 state solution) must be fully recognized and supported by our Party. BDS is a reasonable way to make the point. (Side note: The Palestinian People have the right to elect secular or religious political leaders. Perhaps more on this later.)

A couple other points.

I don't think reacting to internal discord, or even flatly unprincipled maneuvering, is a good justification for passing this Resolution. That's basically the only disagreement I have with Richard's "post," appended below. I "responded" to his note (ie by including his subject line in my subject line) to emphasize how much I agree with the overall tone and content of his message.

I'm sufficiently exercised about this that I will comment directly.

1. I have no doubt Amy Vas Nunes holds strongly held views on this issue, and that she feels frustrated and angry by both the content of the Resolution, and by the general trend within the Party on the question of Israel/Palestine over the past few years. But angry notes, some back-channel and smacking of ad-hominem rancor, with seemingly little or no attention to niceties such as grammar, spelling or (content) accuracy, is not a way to advance an effective argument.

2. Some years ago, Mike Feinstein's role--indeed even his capacity to serve as an advisor to the IC--was challenged. The challenge seemed to have its origins in an internal battle within the GP of California. This came to public view in a dispute that led to a criminal investigation. When Tony G recently posted to this list, it was this investigation (of Mike Feinstein, in particular) which the article he appended was referring to. As Mike pointed out, what Tony G omitted (I think most likely because the "allegation" got way more "press" than the "Feinstein cleared" material) was that the investigation "cleared" Feinstein. I mention this at some length because I suspect many members of the IC were not on the IC when this took place. And, I mention it because (partly because of my experience as a criminal defense attorney) I developed a rather lengthy analysis of the claims or "charges" against Feinstein. To cut to the chase, I (at the very least)
 strongly questioned whether the allegations against him had merit. The IC resisted the efforts to remove Feinstein as an advisor to our committee; the IC's stand was, in relatively short order, vindicated.

Mike Feinstein has served the IC, either as an advisor, and now as a member, for several years. This fact, and the "history" I set forth in the above paragraph, is why I'm so disappointed in Mike's recent activity. If you felt, Mike, that the IC's "bylaw compliance" was inadequate, you've had years to make the point in the course of our regular work. If you only discovered what you now perceive as inadequate bylaw compliance after volunteering for the IC Election subcommittee, you had ample opportunity to raise the question on our list.

I admit that the "disconnect" between Mike's trusting the IC to "get it right" when his very capacity to serve as an advisor to the IC was (hotly!!) at issue, as contrasted with his unwillingness to trust the IC to "get it right" on "bylaws" makes me think that a political agenda may be at work here. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. But, if there is a political agenda involved, I for one would much appreciate Mike's setting it out forthrightly.

Well, that's enough for now.

Thanks to the IC members who have (solicitously) inquired about my health. Your care and concern means a lot to me.

Alan Kaufman


--- On Sun, 4/5/09, Richard Walton <richard at RichardJWalton.org> wrote:

> From: Richard Walton <richard at RichardJWalton.org>
> Subject: USGP-INT Changing My Vote from "Abstain" to "Yes"
> To: usgp-int at gp-us.org

> Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009, 11:18 AM

 Hi, Although I originally voted to Abstain on the call for a BDS declaration as a consequence of Israel's cruel and bloody invastion of
Gaza, I have decided to change my vote to Yes. 

Although I had certain reservations about the declaration, in view of the ugly, and totally unfounded attacks on the International Committee that I
would hate anyone to think I shared, I have concluded that I must change my vote from Abstain to Yes.

I have been a Green longer than most, I have served in number capacities over the years and I have never, even in a party grown increasingly contentious, seen such unwarranted attacks on any Green Party entity. 

The International Committee has not been the tidiest of committees perhaps but rather an untidy committee that works hard and effectively than one that is procedurely perfect, if indeed there is such a one in the Green Party.

I have been ashamed at the rancor demonstrated by some Greens. We have  enough external adversaries without tearing ourselves apart because we
lack trust in each other and have not learned to disagree with civility.

YES! 
Peace. 
Richard Walton, RI.



_______________________________________________
usgp-int mailing list
usgp-int at gp-us.org
http://forum.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/usgp-int

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20090405/75d19da3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00000
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20090405/75d19da3/attachment.ksh>