Some Policy Questions for Antiwar Coalitions
by Rabbi Michael Lerner, Tikkun Community
[Editors Note: In this comment on the “curious” article in the Jan. 24 New York Times, which in fact was a redbaiting article, Rabbi Michael Lerner seems to do some redbaiting of his own, particularly when he states that the ANSWER coalition is “dominated by a communist sect group which is filled with hate toward Israel and wishes to see it dismantled.”
[As one of our Editorial Board members, Bill Onasch, has commented, Lerner does touch on “some difficult challenges faced by the antiwar movement. How to make some legitimate criticisms of a formation such as ANSWER without giving aid and comfort to redbaiters? How to challenge the crimes of the Israeli regime without being labeled anti-Semitic? One can have substantial disagreements with Rabbi Lerner’s political views, but his effort to do the right thing in the face of fierce adversity is admirable. It is testimony to the depth of antiwar sentiment that currents such as Tikkun set aside their disagreements with ANSWER in order to build mass action.”]
The New York Times had a curious article on Friday, Jan. 24, talking about dissension in the antiwar movement, and quoting Rabbi Michael Lerner. What was curious was that the reporter had completely ignored Rabbi Lerner’s central point and instead built an article around a side point. The side point was that it’s annoying to be subjected to a series of content-less harangues at antiwar demonstrations, and that instead of a series of empty rants these mass mobilizations could be used to increase the level of sophisticated understanding of the world and the need to challenge corporate globalization, and to understand America in a more complex way. Particularly for those of us who appreciate many things about American society, the one-dimensional anti-American rhetoric wears thin and doesn’t represent us—because we know that America has many good aspects to this society and that it is precisely by appealing to that which is best in Americans that we are most likely to mobilize them to an antiwar movement.
But that was an aside. The major criticism that we at Tikkun and the Tikkun community have put forward is that the mobilizations have been run by a group called ANSWER, itself dominated by a communist sect group which is filled with hate toward Israel and wishes to see it dismantled. It has used antiwar demonstrations to demean Israel and to picture the war in Iraq as a war for Israeli interests. This has made it very difficult for many progressive Jews to become involved in the antiwar protests, because many feel that they don’t want to be in a context which is led by people who truly wish harm on Israel.
We have continually insisted on the difference between criticism of Israeli policies (we are adamant supporters of an end to the Occupation, reparations for Palestinian refugees, an end to Israeli human rights abuses, etc.) on the one hand and demeaning Israel and denying its fundamental legitimacy on the other. We insist that criticisms of Israel be balanced by criticisms also of the terror tactics from the Palestinian world that have created so much fear in Israel that people who were disposed toward peace ten years ago today are in despair about peace and hence willing to vote for right-wing candidates or to simply go into psychological depression and give up on any hopes for change (see a recent article by Uri Avnery).
Our balanced perspective is articulated in the book we’ve just published from Tikkun Books — it’s called Healing Israel/Palestine (and will also be distributed by North Atlantic Books). We know that it is not possible to totally separate a discussion of Iraq from a discussion of Israel. But we want a sophisticated and balanced voice on Israel—and one that can affirm BOTH the humanity of Israelis AND the humanity of Palestinians. That point, the main one made to the NY Times, was completely absent from the Times story on Friday. If you’d like to see the Tikkun critique articulated in the media, you might let them know by contacting Dick Berke (202) 862-0370 or riberk@nytimes.com (the Washington office NY Times editor who edits these stories) or by contacting Lynette Clemetson (202) 862-0300 (ask to be transferred to her extension) or by emailing her at lyclem@nytimes.com (she is the author of the story).
Still, the spirit and goodness of the masses of people who participated in those demonstrations on Jan. 18 was not overshadowed by the distortions of the groups who managed to get charge of the microphones and claim to be our leaders. The outpouring of hopes for peace was a beautiful reminder that despite the way that the media blocks us out of public view, or trivializes our message, those who want a different kind of world are not just a handful of isolated people, but a huge surge of Americans who to this moment have almost no place but these demonstrations to express their goodness and generosity.
We have to do all we can to make sure that neither the distortions in the media and the attempts to isolate or marginalize us nor the ego-tripping and sectarianism of the antiwar leadership lead people to despair and give up on protest. In the March issue of TIKKUN magazine we will talk more about what we hope these protests can accomplish (if you don’t yet subscribe, you can do so right now by going to www.tikkun.org and subscribing on-line—it’s the least you can do to help us keep alive to send these messages).
Meantime, there will be another mobilization against the war February 15 in New York and February 16 in San Francisco. And despite our reservations about the leadership, the Tikkun Community will be doing all it can to bring people to these and subsequent events to support a world of peace.