[R-G] RE: thanks; assertion; query (and probably a much longer answer than you expected or need)

[David Mcreynolds]

I'd tried to send this to Rad-Green in response to a question about my comments on ANSWER. I hope this does get through,
also to Carrol.

Peace,
David McReynolds

Sent: 9/27/2005 4:22:27 PM 
Subject: RE: thanks; assertion; query (and probably a much longer answer than you expected or need)


Dear Wythe,

I'm sending blind copies of this to some others, including the "rad-green" list, where the moderator had asked me the same question and it seems
that, for some reason, (looking at my "not yet sent" list) it never made it out of my computer. This response will  be longer than you
expected because the issues are both complex and serious.

I do not think ANSWER is anti-Semitic. I do not think Brian Becker, his brother, and others in ANSWER are anti-Semitic.  I  have great respect
for the intense work that Workers World Party (which set up ANSWER and, up until last year's split in WWP, ran it - Brian Becker, and others in
the WWP who split and set up a new organization - Party for Socialism and Liberation -  still do run it). Despite my disagreements with Workers World, I've spoken at rallies organized by it (which for a long time worked through another front - the International Action Center, with which Ramsey Clark is associated).
That includes a demonstration in Times Square way back when Reagan authorized the bombing of Libya and the only group willing and able
to get out on the street here in New York was Workers World.

WWP was set up in 1959 by the late Sam Marcy, as a split from the orthodox Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party. One can find a good history
of WWP on Wikipedia by googling Workers World Party. For those like myself, who came into the socialist movement in 1951, into the Socialist Party
USA (and considered myself in the SP's left wing), it was very hard to understand how a one-time Trotskyist group could support the Soviet intervention
in Hungary in 1956, the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, the coup against Gorbachev,  the repression in Tiainmin Square, the North Korean regime,
etc.  To some of us these are "impossible positions" for a socialist group to take, but I do understand that, from the perspective of WWP (and I assume the
split which controls ANSWER) the horrors of capitalism are so great that a defense of "presently existing socialism", for all its faults, was imperative.

Sometimes those of us on the democratic socialist side forget to calculate the horrors of capitalism, and I don't mean just the problems of assembly-line
production, dehumanization, alienation, etc., of industrial and technological society (problems that actually also face the Communist world). And we can
over-estimate the degree of democracy in Western democracies. When one adds up the Korean War, the over three million dead in Vietnam, the estimated one million killed in Indochina some years ago in a remarkable and now largely forgotten purge of Maoist rebels, the toll in Central America, in Chile, the support of corrupt regimes such as Franco Spain, the old South African regime, or the repressive government in Israel, then it becomes possible to feel that ANY opposition to the West must be supported.

In 1991 when Iraq invaded Kuwait, WWP refused to make any condemnation of Iraq because in their view any force resisting the US was on the "front line"
of the anti-imperialist struggle.

While I do understand this position, and it accounted for the support Stalin had from many decent intellectuals in the West (a position
articulated  well by Bertolt Brecht, particularly in his famous poem "To Posterity"), for me personally, and those of us who have sought (with little
success!) to build an independent left - particularly figures such as the late A. J. Muste here in the US, but also by others I've known and worked with - the late Claude Bourdet in France, the late Peggy Duff in Great Britain, the late Gil Green in the US,  as well as friends in Japan - there are limits. With Albert Camus we say "Neither victims nor executioners".  And for those of us who are pacifists, we say with Muste "There is no way to peace - peace is the way".  This effort to build "socialism with a human face" led us to support and where possible work with the dissidents in the Soviet Bloc, as well as to categorically repudiate the efforts of US imperialism to "export democracy with bayonets", whether in Indochina or Iraq.

In some ways we have sought to build a position which had some moral grounding. (I do not, by this, mean that those in Workers World or its split, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, are not moral people, because I think, at a personal level, they are). Such a politics does mean that the end does not justify the means
- a sharp break with some of the elements of Lenin's and Trotsky's positions.

Now, how does this apply to the charge of anti-Semitism?  For those of us who are, through no fault of our own except good luck, old,  the memory of the Holocaust remains, as much as Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and Dresden), a reminder of the level to which human beings could sink. The Zionist movement built Israel on the foundations of the Holocaust - and if one looks back to the murder of six million people because they were Jews (plus another six million who were
Slavs, leftists, homosexuals, etc.) one can understand why the world Jewish community supported the creation of Israel. And why the West, out of a guilty
conscience, was more than willing to impose a Jewish State in Palestine. It seemed, at the time, a "cost free" way of dealing with a terrible sense of guilt.

If one is Brian Becker's age - or younger - then the Holocaust is only one of many horrors littering history's landscape. The immediacy of it escapes younger 
people. And if people are not Jews, then it is possible to ignore the centrality of the Holocaust to all Jews, secular, Orthodox, etc.

And if one is in an organization which has put "ends before means", and is determined to reach third world people, to build links with the newly emerging Muslim
community, with the Palestinians, then it is only too easy to accept formulations and slogans which do, in fact, border on anti-Semitic. I would be very cautious
in throwing around the term "Zionist" in referring to Israel, since the majority of Israelis were either born after 1948, or came to Israel after its founding. Those born
after 1948 think of themselves as Israelis, not Zionists. Those who came to Israel usually ended up there because they couldn't get to the US - Israel was the
"choice of last resort". Israel has been, for some years, a "post-Zionist" state.  All the wonderful dreams of the early Zionists are dead.  Instead you have a pervasive racism within Israel, and a militarized society intolerant not only of Arabs but also of Israeli Jews who struggle, against great odds, for peace.

ANSWER reaches out to the Palestinians but rarely embraces or mentions the peace movement within Israel. The supporters of ANSWER within the Palestinian
community, and on their speakers' platforms, refer to the "Zionist entity" rather than to Israel. For Jews, whether in Israel or here in the US, the fact that many
of those drawn to ANSWER simplify the issues makes them appear as anti-Semitic.

I think the US movement should realize we cannot dictate the terms of peace in the Middle East. (I think it is unlikely, for example, that all the Palestinian refugees will ever be able to return to their original homes). We need to accept the reality that Israel exists, that it is a military power that dominates the Middle East, and
that many of the issues which legitimately agitate the Palestinian community (and the Arab world) will have to be solved by negotiations between Israel and the 
Palestinians. I find the Israelis cynical, manipulative,  with little awareness that eventually some Palestinian, in an act of frustration, will explode a dirty
bomb in Tel Aviv. 

But I can't make peace - nor can ANSWER. The only thing the US movement is able to do - and should be doing - is to demand the immediate, unconditional
cut off of all US military and economic aid to Israel. We should hound every member of Congress on this question. We should challenge the influence of AIPAC on the US political process and see it for what it is - not the expression of American Jewish concern, but the deliberate intervention in our political process of a
foreign power. And we should, of course, establish and maintain friendly relations with democratic forces both in Palestine and Israel. Further, we need to stop
"equating" the terrorism of the two side. All terrorism is deplorable - but the violence of those who are occupied, who are driven to suicide bombings, is an expression of their inability to achieve change through any political process. Even now, as I write this, Israel is working to prevent Hamas from taking part
in Palestinian elections!!

What I will not do, however, is to deny that Israel has the same right to exist as any other state. It doesn't have the right to do anything it wants in order to
exist. But it is there, it isn't going to go away, and the beginning of a peaceful process would be a recognition by Israel that it truly does understand that a sovereign, independent Palestinian State has the right to exist. (I must say I am not optimistic about any state - Israeli or Palestinian - but that is another discussion).

To a great extent Workers World and its recent split seek for issues which will make it possible to maintain divisions within the peace movement.
The central issue right now is not Israel - it is the US involvement in Iraq. When ANSWER forced the Israeli question center stage it drove a wedge in the
movement by frightening off some liberal Jews. (I say "shame on them", but I report a fact). ANSWER also raised the issue of Haiti to an equal level with
that of Iraq, and did so in a very cynical effort to broaden its own involvement in the communities of color. Haiti is a tragic country,  the US is clearly
responsible for the kidnapping of Aristide and the current mess. But Haiti is not anywhere near the level of Iraq as an issue. (Nor does Haiti have any
assets the US ruling class wants - no natural resources, no strategic base, etc.).

During the nearly forty years I've known Workers World, from the Vietnam period to the present, it has put itself outside the broad coalitions, even, when necessary, 
seeking issues that would divide the movement. In 1991 during the run up to the first Gulf War, the main, broad coalition against the war knew that we had to be
able to say "Of course Iraq should not have invaded Kuwait and should withdraw - but the central issue is that the US should not launch a war over this issue,
but leave this for the Arab states to sort out".  It was Workers World which insisted that no statement be made on the invasion of Kuwait - which would have
left us in the impossible position with the general public of having no answer at all when they asked if we did or didn't support Iraq's invasion. (I'm aware that the Iraqi case against Kuwait was considerable, that the invasion had some basis - but one cannot demand rule of law and then find exemptions, one cannot demand
that Israel accept UN Resolutions but then excuse Iraq for ignoring them).

For anyone interested in reports on the Middle East from the peace movement in Israel, I'll be happy to direct you to sources.

Fraternally,
David McReynolds








----- Original Message ----- 
From: Wythe Holt jr. 
To: david.mcr at earthlink.net 
Cc: Jack Zylman
Sent: 9/27/2005 10:19:01 AM 
Subject: thanks; assertion; query


David, Jack Zylman forwarded your excellent post on the Sept 24 demo to a list he and I are both on.  Thanks for an excellent summary.  One point: the huge demonstration was NOT allowed to surround the White House.  17th Street to the west of the old state dept/old exec off bldg, fro PA to Constitution, was completely barred to demonstrators (actually to anyone but the police).  One question: what part of ANSWERs position comes close to anti-Semitism?  (I am ignorant, and have asked others this question without any response.)  Thanks for everything again, in solidarity, Wythe (Holt)