What's at issue is elementary political intelligence. This was the first big chance for a non-ANSWER rally. I thought it was mainly a UFP&J affair. If ANSWER wants to endorse fine. But the point of a separate coalition is separate politics. It is reasonable to ask speakers not to dwell on the shortcomings of coalition members. It is stupid for UFP to indulge ANSWER.
Lerner's voice, as much as it grates on radicals, is exactly the sort of moderate, booshwah message you want to include in this sort of rally. The point is to sway those on the fence, and lend confidence to those who are not dyed in the wool radicals or peaceniks.
In this context, some alternative jew would be just an Uncle Tom. The test here is whether a two-state solution person is permitted to speak.
The point is to stop the war, not aggrandize ANSWER.
mbs
-----Original Message----- From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Chris Kromm Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 12:27 AM To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Subject: The Lerner Affair
Am I the only one who doesn't get the Lerner flap? Let me get this straight. Lerner goes around bashing ANSWER publicly. ANSWER returns the favor by not inviting him to speak at their San Francisco rally Feb 16 (and Lerner himself says he never even *wanted* to speak). ANSWER then get depicted as totalitarian Kim Jong Il wanna-bes, with implied charges of anti-Semitism thrown in for good measure.
Lerner's weakness for anything that puts him in the spotlight isn't news. But the way this has become a rallying cry, including a letter demanding Lerner be allowed to speak signed by all sorts of lefty luminaries, is baffling. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0211-09.htm