Of course he does. Coalitions are all about people with differing views wanting their differing views represented. If they are not, the coalition shrinks.
But if the antiwar movement excludes anyone who supports a two-state solution in the Middle East, then it is an incredibly shrunken alliance on the issue of Iraq. Which is frankly how ANSWER has framed its work since 911.
ANSWER is promoting narrowness throughout the movement, trashing those views they disagree with, while demanding that anyone who criticizes them be excluded from polite left company. As I've noted, my own organization the National Lawyers Guild is about to declare any criticism of ANSWER "red baiting" and are debating whether to demand that all local chapters and leaders fall into line and drop all criticism of ANSWER. That means me, specifically, although it applies more generally to the New York City chapter which refused to endorse ANSWER events, except for an exception made for the October rallies in DC.
That this is even being debated in the NLG just reflects the reverse McCarthyism involved in charges of "red baiting." HUAC is not currently meeting and state-sponsoring repression is not going after Communists, but speakers or members of left organizations are being told that their dissenting speech on ANSWER is unacceptable, that to remain a member or be allowed to speak, they must repudiate those views or at least remain silent.
We had the ludicrous debate on the redbaiting resolution where the main person cited my personal blog as evidence of my moral failings as a leftist and the need to pass this anti-redbaiting resolution, then when someone asked if the resolution-makers legal work for ANSWER and the WWP might bias his position, he declared that even mentioning the fact was McCarthyism. That's the game. Smear other people, while making any attempt to substantiate criticism of ANSWER's repressive methods impossible.
-- Nathan Newman