Peace Demonstration Bares Its Anti-Semitic Teeth: Cry of pain from the deluded, halfway-decent Left

The following letters are being circulated by Marc Cooper of The Nation and by Tikkun Magazine, respectively.

Rabbi Michael Lerner has been banned from speaking at the antiwar rally in San Francisco this Sunday, February 15. One of the rally organizers, Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER), has stated that it will not allow a "pro-Israel" speaker to take the stage -- despite the fact that Rabbi Lerner has been an outspoken critic of Israeli policy in the occupied territories, has endorsed ANSWER's antiwar rallies in the past, has signed the Not in Our Name petition against the war, and is widely known to be among the most progressive of American rabbis. Other coalitions organizing the rally, including Not in Our Name and United for Peace and Justice, have acceded to ANSWER's opposition to Lerner, on the grounds that they had previously accepted as a condition for participation in the demonstration the agreement that if one of the groups vetoed a speaker that all would have to agree.

We, the undersigned, protest ANSWER's refusal to let Rabbi Lerner speak at this Sunday's rally. At a time when the antiwar movement needs as broad a platform and as broad an appeal as possible, ANSWER has chosen instead to put the interests of sectarianism ahead of the interests of all those who oppose this foolish and unnecessary war. We believe this is a serious mistake, and that it exemplifies ANSWER's unfitness to lead mass mobilizations against war in Iraq.

Progressive Rabbi Banned From Speaking at Peace Rally Because of His Pro-Israel Stance

Rabbi Michael Lerner can not speak at the peace rally in San Francisco, February 16th. That was the response given when various groups proposed Rabbi Lerner, thinking it logical to have him speak since he is one of the most prominent peace voices in the Jewish world.

But Rabbi Lerner was blackballed and banned by A.N.S.W.E.R., one of the four organizing committees for the S.F. demonstration expected to attract hundreds of thousands. The reason: Lerner had been critical of the way that A.N.S.W.E.R. has used the anti-war demonstrations to put forward anti-Israel propaganda.

Lerner, editor of Tikkun magazine, is himself an outspoken critic of Israeli policy. But he is also a Zionist who believes in the State of Israel and supported his son to serve in the Israeli army in a combat union (the tzanchanim or paratroopers). But Lerner and Tikkun magazine have been equally critical of acts of terror by Palestinians, and they have called for Palestinians to follow a path of non-violence. In his 2003 book Healing Israel/Palestine, Lerner calls for a "progressive middle path" that is both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine, and argues that the best interests of each can only be achieved if the other side also achieves its best interests.

Other coalitions supporting the rally , including the United For Peace and Justice and the Not In Our Name, went along with the ban, arguing that they had previously accepted as a condition for participation in the demonstration the agreement that if one of the groups vetoed a speaker that all would have to go along. A.N.S.W.E.R. spokesperson, speaking on the Brian Lehrer show of WNYC, said that they would not agree to have a "pro-Israel" speaker at their rally. Meanwhile, there are many in the organized Jewish world who will not let Lerner speak because he is too critical of Israeli policy.

Beyt Tikkun synagogue, where Rabbi Lerner serves as a rabbi in San Francisco, issued the following statement: "Rabbi Lerner has urged us to continue to support the demonstration for peace on February 16th, and we will be there to show that many Jews oppose this war. However, we do not believe that had A.N.S.W.E.R. been criticized by a major feminist or gay leader and then vetoed that leader to speak at a demonstration that the other coalition partners would go along with that. So why should criticism of anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing be treated differently? A.N.S.W.E.R. doesn't believe that Israel has a right to exist. We are enthusiastic supporters of Israel, even though totally critical of its current policies. So why should our voice of critique of A.N.S.W.E.R.'s anti-Israel policy serve as a justification for excluding our rabbi from speaking? This seems a dangerous double-standard and conveys, probably unintentionally, the message that somehow anti-Semitism is not a significant issue for anti-war protesters."

Rabbi Lerner said, "I'm honored that some people wanted me to speak, and dismayed that the specific reason I'm not allowed to speak is my criticism of the anti-Israel bias of A.N.S.W.E.R. But I believe that the message of peace is far more pressing at the moment than the message of fighting the anti-Semitism among some of the march's organizers."

If Bush wins a quick victory in the Middle East and the Jewish voters perceive Israel as safe it will be back to the democrats for the liberal segment of the Jewish vote

I don’t think that’s the problem, and I don’t think GWB will pick up that many votes based on Israel, the war on terror perhaps.

Hillary wasn’t about Israel. At the time the peace process was in full gear, supported by most liberal US Jews. The Oslo War (aka al aska intiftada) had just started. If it was disappointment with Israel policy, they wouldn’t have overwhelming voted for a continuation of the Clinton policy under Gore.

Hilliary kissed Suha (sp?) after uttering a version of old libels (poisoning children) and was outed over her *ew bastard comment. She came off as a Jew hater. That was the issue, not Israel, and yes, that hatred will often transcend the liberal bias of many Jews.

If the Rep’s pick up Jewish votes it will be from demographic change, particularly economic and tax policies which appeal to younger voters. A backlash against perceived liberal anti-Semitism, yes, but I don’t think it’s perceived yet. Support for Israel, in the top 5 issues perhaps.

I sent this article to my Rabbi (40-something and coming around). Here is his emailed reply:

Thanks for the article.... I may not be a conservative, but I'm no fan of the left,
as you are aware. Especially when it comes to Israel. They are detached from
reality. To give you a personal example: the {other} congregation {that I serve}
was asked to co-sponsor (and host at the synagogue) an event called Tapestry,
a story-telling presentation by two American women, one Jewish and one with
Lebanese Christian ancestry. We agreed, whereupon one of the co-sponsoring
organizations -- named Kansas Committee for a Just Peace in the Mideast --
asked whether they could distribute materials at the event.

I asked to meet with representatives and look over the materials. The two folks
who came to meet me (both ordinary midwesterners, one Jewish) were as nice
as could be. We talked for quite a while, and discovered our points of view
were widely divergent. (Surprise, surprise).

Then they handed me copies of three documents they wanted to distribute. The
first referred to suicide bombers as freedom fighters, the second equated the
occupation with the Holocaust, and the third called for the US to cut off all aid
to Israel.
AND THEY REALLY THOUGHT I MIGHT CONSIDER LETTING THEM
PUT THESE ON A TABLE AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE SYNAGOGUE!

They're just clueless. Even if I secretly agreed with any of those things (which of
course I don't) I'd be committing political suicide. But they were very nice. See
you next week.

We have a small congregation that hires this rabbi for alternate weekends. He also serves another similar congregation in another city on the alternating weekends. My wife and I are the lone conservative voices in a sea of life-long yellow-dog liberals. This rabbi undoubtedly feels tremendous leftist pressure and I like to think that I offer at least a little rightward force (and it is the joy of my Shabbat to "talk" politics with congregation members...at least until I begin shaking my head in frustration). But, the Rabbi strives to be well-read and open-minded, although it remains a constant battle to offset (redirect) the liberal (But they were very nice) part of him.

Yeah, but they didn't have to rub elbows with Baptists. I have listened to liberal Jews claim, in all sincerity, that Christians who attempt to convert Jews are the same as Nazis. As if *listening*--or avoiding listening to, as is everyone's freedom!--some religious spiel is the same as being gassed and burned.

The ones bashing the French the hardest are probably conservatives, not Liberal Jews, yet it's the French bringing in a new era of synagogue burnings.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.