"If it gives out shit to Jews only, then that state must be destroyed, just as we helped destroy the Apartheid regime in S Africa, period, full stop, punto finale."
It could not be more obvious that this gentleman's audience, whether he knows it or not, is not the likely constituents of an American mass anti-war movement. It won't matter how many leaflets he passes out.
mbs
-----Original Message----- From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Doug Henwood Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 9:06 PM To: lbo-talk Subject: Lenni replies to Max
From: BrennerL21 at aol.com Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 20:48:41 EST Subject: Reply from Lenni Brenner
2 21 03 Doug,
Thanks for sending me Max Sawicky's rant. Frankly its hard to follow, especially when he attributes something to Lerner that I said:
"[Later in his post, Lerner makes fun of the kabbalah, itself an intrinsic part of NK religious faith.]"
Like Lerner, the NK believes in Kabbala. But Lerner wasn't excluded from speaking because he believes in it, but because he called WWP anti-Semitic.
As to the NK being like Pat Robertson and or Oral Roberts, that's singularly mad, given that Robertson is pro-Zionist. What he means to say, in his dull-witted, inept way, is that they are fundamentalists.
So what? Forty-seven percent of Americans believe God created the world in the last ten thousand years. Should we exclude them from the peace movement?
At the end of the day, Sawicky says that he still thinks "Lerner's stink bomb is a useful corrective." Disruptive stink bomb it was, which is why he excludes himself from any serious coalition.
Our genius is correct on one thing:
"Now a right of return equals denial of a Jewish state. Let's be real."
That's what I say: Let's be real. In any state, there is equality before the law or there isn't. If a state gives out rights of return or shit pies, the issue is the same: Does it give out those pies equally or to one dominant group? If it gives out shit to Jews only, then that state must be destroyed, just as we helped destroy the Apartheid regime in S Africa, period, full stop, punto finale.
As to the issue of Zionism being brought up in a movement against a potential US war in the ME: Note well, that there were Jewish and pro-Zionist speakers at the rally that excluded Lerner. He brought the issue up. But of course the movement will have to face the glaring fact that Bush supports Israel and Israel supports him. People have to be crazy to ignore the fact that the fruit of Zionism is its alliances with Hitler, Nixon, Apartheid and Bush.
I regret that I got so many letters on the piece, (most favorable), that I can't get into answering every screwball's every last absurdity, but in any case, please feel free to circulate Max's rubbish and my reply to your lists, and be sure to tell them that they can get a signed copy of
51 Documents Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis Edited by Lenni Brenner
with a check made out to me, for $22.00 +$1.84 media mail postage, sent to
Lenni Brenner Park West Finance Station POB 20598 NY, NY 10025
Be certain that it will be major help in exposing the true nature of Zionism.
Stay well, give 'em hell,
Lenni BrennerL21 at aol.com
==
Well this is a fine slice of baloney, and none too kosher.
Neturei Karta is a fun group. They make Jesse Helms look like an avatar of modernity. Let's face it, they are the Jewish equivalent of Pat Robertson. No, that's too hip. More like Oral Roberts. The affection for them which I share in my own perverse way lies in their unremitting hostility to the State of Israel, and the impossibility of describing said hostility as anti-semitic. [Later in his post, Lerner makes fun of the kabbalah, itself an intrinsic part of NK religious faith.]
If you heard a white man tell blacks to go back to Africa, you would consider such a statement racist. Nevertheless, everyone knows that at one time there was a black-led back to Africa movement in the U.S. The adherence of NK to a position voiced by someone else has no bearing on the nature of the alternative source for such a view.
Brenner's other resort is to claim common ground with Jews who no longer want to be jewish. Neither is this much of a testament to anti-anti-semitism.
Indulgence to NK is not equivalent to allowance for the views of those who support a two-state solution. After all the flaunting of NK support, somewhere later Brenner acknowledges the need for this in an anti-war movement.
Now a right of return equals denial of a Jewish state. Let's be real. There are arguments for such a position. Noam Chomsky had it once, but he discarded it eons ago. Such a position has NO PLACE in the platform of a broad anti-war coalition. It has no place not because of its jewish constituency, but because of its broader American liberal constituency. If you want to stop the war, you don't embed such a gratuitous position in your platform. It is not inherently racist. It is context that determines racism or its lack.
I'm talking about what an anti-war coalition should uphold. If ANSWER is trying to sneak a right-of-return line into the movement, that does not constitute anti-semitism, but it does deserve political criticism. Is Lerner an principled critic? No. But the issue isn't Lerner or ANSWER, it is which way for the movement. I still think Lerner's stink bomb is a useful corrective. It's not exactly surgical, more like a two-by-four upside the head.
Anyone with some knowledge of the left knows that Brenner's DSA millstone just doesn't work when you look at the list of signatures. What should really give pause to those taking umbrage at the petition is that LEO CASEY and NOAM CHOMSKY both signed it. From what I could see, it was DSA types who did the most to instigate it. But you really need to reevaluate your position if you find yourself outside of a statement of agreement between Casey & Chomsky. Basically you're in woo-woo land.
Hey I worked in a type shop in Manhattan! I'm a proletarian too! Right.
mbs