at http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&ItemID=3031
The final paragraphs say:
>
> So what is wrong with this picture? I think not anti-Semitism and not ANSWER rejecting Lerner’s politics. These didn’t seem to happen. It isn’t even that the UFPJ coalition honored the promise it had made. Honoring promises is proper.
>
> The problem with the picture, assuming this information is basically accurate, is UFPJ making the promise in the first place. That a speaker has been critical of a sponsoring organization is simply a wrong-headed reason for rejecting that speaker.
>
> The norm implies that no matter if you have wonderful things to say, no matter if you are a great speaker, no matter if you represent a wide constituency, no matter if all but one of the sponsoring organizations want you to speak (or arguably even if all of them do), and no matter how widely your criticisms are held, if you have been critical of a sponsoring organization, then you can’t speak. Being critical is an act so unacceptable that it overrules everything else.
>
> How could that be chosen as a norm in a movement which is supposed to prize democracy, dissent, diversity, and debate? I would imagine that this norm was adopted in a difficult and tense context while trying to generate some unity. But regardless of good motives and difficult conditions, it is a repressive and anti-democratic norm which we should avoid in the future.
>
> What should happen now?
>
> Without any doubt, everyone should go demonstrate. And without any doubt, everyone should for now set aside the controversy and dissension at a critical time before world historic demonstrations that need our energies. This is mostly because it is the right prioritization, but it is also because as best I can tell no one as yet has a very clear idea what, exactly, has gone on, and certainly insufficient knowledge to warrant demands and accusations.
>
> I offer the above reading of these events as my best guess of what happened and why it happened, based on hearing conflicting reports. I do so to try to clear some air and tone down some rising tempers. I certainly wouldn’t want to take strong sides based on what is written above, much less to engage in aggressive controversy at a time like this. It seems far more prudent to go back to work, and to address the controversy after the demonstrations.
>
> That is, everyone should back off. There is plenty of time to look for lessons later when people can calmly report the facts and see what went wrong, and hopefully correct the problems for the future. My guess is that it won’t turn out to be anti-Semitism. And it won’t turn out to be rejecting Lerner’s politics. It won’t even turn out to be ANSWER’s bad politics. The situation will prove more subtle then any of that, and trying to shoehorn it into simple and condemnatory boxes while everyone is operating under huge pressure won’t help. Now, let’s organize and demonstrate! Later, let’s wait until there are facts in hand. And mostly, let’s look for positive lessons for the future.