[R-G] An exchange on Lerner and nonexclusion debate

[Fred Feldman]

Dear G,
Glad to have your opinion, but it doesn't change my mind.  So the exact
wording was "attack and attempt to discredit" one of the coalitions. In my
view, that requires no change in my response.

How can you genuinely unify coalitions that represent some real differences
of approach and opinion if you cannot include anyone who can be said to have
"attacked or attempted to discredit" one or more of them.  This is a
standard that begins with the concerns of the individual coalitions as
organizations, and not the meeds of the mass movement which the unification
of coalitions is supposed to unite and broaden in all directions.  The
unification of  four coalitions -- a positive development that ought to be
imitated elsewhere -- should  not have any other purpose. How did  this
retroactive penalty for "attacking and attempting to discrredit" advance
this goal in any way?

Should Rabbi Lerner be driven from the antiwar movement because of his
"attack and attempt to discredit" in which, I guarantee you, he represented
at Tikkun more than just himself ?  Everyone says no.  So why should he be
kept off the speakers' platform on these grounds?  Again, who has been
strengthened by this exclusionary standard -- not the antiwar movement or
its unity, Dear G,
Glad to have your opinion, but it doesn't change my mind.  So the exact
wording was "attack and attempt to discredit" one of the coalitions.

But how can you genuinely unify coalitions that represent some real
differences of approach and opinion if you cannot include anyone who can be
said to have "attacked or attempted to discredit" one or more of them.  This
is a standard that begins with the concerns of the individual coalitions as
organizations, and not the meeds of the mass movement which the unification
of coalitions is supposed to unite and broaden in all directions.  The
unification of  four coalitions -- a positive development that ought to be
imitated elsewhere -- should  not have any other purpose. How does this
retroactive penalty for "attacking and attempting to discrredit" advance
this goal in any way?

Should Rabbi Lerner be driven from the antiwar movement because of his
"attack and attempt to discredit" in which, I guarantee you, he represented
at Tikkun more than just himself ?  Everyone says no.  So why should he be
kept off the speakers' platform on these grounds?  Again, who has been
strengthened by this exclusionary standard -- not the antiwar movement or
its unity,as far as I can see.  This standard -- adopted in good faith by
four fighting antiwar coalitions -- has been weighed in the balance and
found wanting.

Start with the needs of the movement, not the concerns of the coalitions,
and the coalitions need to do the same thing.  That's the key to going
forward.  Justified outrage against the recbaiters cuts no ice if  it  leads
to actions that cut across that.
Fred Feldman

----- Original Message -----
To: <ffeldman at bellatlantic.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: A Jewish Voice for Peace responds to clash over Rabbi Lerner


 Fred,

 I usually find your contributions very helpful in the disputes that come up
on
 the email lists. But the whole thrust of your criticism of the West Coast
 coalitions in the piece you recently posted is not really on target.

 Lou Paulsen has put together what I think is probably the most accurate
 summary of the events (it is appended to the end of this message). In his
 summary he says:
 <quote>
 An agreement was made among the four groups in the leadership of the
 rally.  I don't know the exact terms of the agreement or when it was
arrived
 at.  Let me just point out one thing to some of the people like Liza
 Featherstone who are wary of the restriction of 'criticism'.  Lots of
people
 are writing as if there were an agreement which would be used to bar anyone
 who had ever disagreed in public with NION, UFPJ, ANSWER, or BACAW.  But
 that's NOT what the 'joint statement' says.  The 'joint statement' says
that
 people would not speak "who had publicly attacked or worked to discredit
one
 of the coalition groups."  To me there is quite a difference between
 "criticism" on the one hand and "public attacks" and "working to discredit"
 on the other hand.  It seems clear to me that this is NOT directed against
 people who disagree with you about politics in an ordinary way.  It is much
 more likely to be directed against people who try to split up the movement,
 pit one coalition against the other, in the pages of the bourgeois media,
 smear other coalitions as 'anti-semitic', and so on.
 unquote>

 The fact is, no one was excluded on this basis or on the basis that you
 describe. So what is the point of carrying on a polemic on this.

 The coalition that Tikken is a part of, UPJ, decided on their own that they
 did not want to put forward Lerner's name. No one at any time within the
 coalition ever invoked the agreement. This was never an issue. It was not
 something that could even be described as being "enforceable." It should be
 seen as a statement of an intent to promote unity and not divisiveness.

 You missed the point on this and have gotten drawn into continuing to beat
a
 nonissue, that was never an issue, until the liberal anti-communists
decided
 that they would make it one.

 G