The Current Thinking is Michael Lerner's personal news blog. He can choose to represent his material however he wants. There's enough sufficient play in his intro to have justified his having posted the Horowitz piece.
Would I have chosen to do so? No, I don't like Horowitz, and I don't agree that its necessary to have posted his work as an alternative view point to those of Tanya Reinhart and Gideon Levy. But its not my blog.
Joel
AS: Thanks for clarifying, Joel. But no, I didn't say anything like "denounce your employer." I'd like to be able to pick up the phone and give you a call if I ever had to, because of third-party interest in our past work together. Responses below...
> Aaron - thanks a lot for pointing the Horowitz piece
> out on Michael
> Lerner's news blog. I didn't know even know it was
> posted to our page.
> I think Michael posted it to represent a number of
> different positions
> on the current conflict, but I'm still I'm quite
> surprised to see this
> on our site.
>
> For those not familiar, David Horowitz and Michael
> Lerner worked
> together in the early 70s on Ramparts, but are now
> considered
> arch-enemies. I'd wager that its probably there to
> irk Horowitz. It
> should've had an introduction to make it clear why
> its there. there's
> good reason for you to be surprised.
AS: Well, now that you've read the introduction, why would Horowitz be irked? I'd expect him to be pleased as punch any time a liberal-Left publication is affected by his work--let alone publishes it and legitimizes his voice as a commentator on grand topics such as war on terrorism or academic freedom (as opposed to being a hatchetman of the Right, inveighing against dangerous professors and conspiracies of the Left).
>
> Regarding the rest of your post: Lerner has
> supported divestment
> actually - see Tikkun's March/April and June/July
> issues from 2005. so
> that's something you should check. Michael Lerner
> used to be a critic
> of calls for divestment, but changed his position
> over the last two
> years.
AS: Well, I was in prison for protesting the SOA then, so I couldn't exactly run out to the newsstand and pick up those issues. : ) Thanks for posting the articles; I was aware there was a debate.
Still, how has Lerner's position changed? Calling the Caterpillar campaign a "selective divestment" campaign (as you have before) raises many questions for me. If "selective divestment" a) means opposing other divestment proposals, and b) responds to the success of groups like CJP in pushing divestment, apartheid analysis, and comparisons to South Africa by rejecting them, then how much of a change is it? I skimmed Tikkun’s Core Vision statement, which suggests he still wants to preserve the Jewish identity of the state. Do you or he see boycotts or calls for full divestment as inherently anti-Semitic?
"Selective divestment" means different things to different people—for instance, ICAHD called for trade sanctions on Israel and boycott of settlement products, not just stopping Caterpillar http://www.endtheoccupation.org/article.php?id=1047—and endorsing one "selective divestment" campaign is different from supporting divestment. It’s not even clear from what you posted what Lerner’s position is: he discusses divestment and takes great pains to state "this is thinking in progress—not a final commitment on my part" and "I am opening a debate, not stating a conclusion." And as I just posted, there’s been a great deal of discussion over the past year—including a long article in The Nation on "The Israel Divestment Debate" (5/8/06)-- about rolling back the Presbyterian Church USA’s line on divestment, which makes Tikkun’s recent actions relevant and its omission from The Nation article unfortunate. So some clarity here would be great. See more comments below.
>
> Concerning Michael's own positions on other
> Israel/Palestine matters,
> you seem to be implying that there is one party
> position at Tikkun.
> Like many magazines, there isn't, just as there
> wasn't when you and I
> worked together at Bad Subjects.
AS: Well, I don't think I was implying that, but this raises several different issues. For one, Tikkun (unlike Bad) doesn't just see itself as a magazine; it’s a synagogue, a Community, a new social movement, building a Network of Spiritual Progressives, etc. The intro to the cluster of articles including Horowitz tells readers where to look for "the positions of Tikkun."
Second, party line is one thing; hegemony is another. If a publication pursues allegations of "anti-semitism" against an individual and pieces of writing, and takes disciplinary actions that are totally unprecedented in one’s history at the publication, then hegemony is certainly called into question.
>
> All of Tikkun's editors respectfully differ on
> questions regarding the
> one versus two state solution, the role of religion
> in Israeli society
> etc etc - among many other things. Its part of what
> makes our
> Israel/Palestine coverage halfway decent. The next
> issue is going to be
> even more lively than usual.
>
> If you want to ask me what my opinion is, you're
> welcome to do so.
Well, I read your opinion a month ago; tell me if I’m missing anything
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20060529/039478.html
To summarize, you oppose boycotts and support the "selective divestment" of the Caterpillar campaign. When people discuss the Caterpillar campaign as a "selective divestment" campaign, again, it raises questions for me. I don't think the Killer Coke campaign calls itself a divestment campaign--even though if I remember correctly, Colombia is the third largest recipient of U.S. aid after Israel and Egypt. These are anti-corporate campaigns targetting corporate complicity with human rights violations. There are many such campaigns.
Is there a consensus within the Caterpillar campaign about its relationship to other divestment strategies? If Caterpillar stopped selling weaponized bulldozers to Israel tomorrow, what Israeli state policy or practice would change? (De-legitimizing weaponized bulldozers is great; in fact, it should be a no-brainer; but what about the military aid?) How different is your position on selective divestment from the "countering divestment and encouraging investment in Israel" polemics of the Israel on Campus Coalition? http://israeloncampuscoalition.org/resources/guides.htm
Saying you oppose boycotts because they punish hippie Israeli businessmen makes me shake my head. You’ve written in detail about your family history in a fine essay here http://bad.eserver.org/issues/2000/49/schalit.html
your Dad's role in the founding of the state of Israel, his friendly ties with military officers and politicians, the model F-4s you got for your birthday from Yitzhak Rabin and Teddy Kollek, etc... I’d venture this has more to do with a gut reaction against boycotts than the fate of hippie Israeli businessmen.
My Dad worked for a U.S. military contractor, and I got an SR-71 baseball cap (although I can't say it was handed to me by a former mayor or head of state), so I’m not stigmatizing you there. And I’d venture that the gut reaction many white U.S. liberal-Leftists have to calls for reparations is similar.
But I dislike your writing when it’s dismissive rather than forthcoming. Referring to boycotts as "collective punishment on Israeli civil society for the moral evil that is the Occupation" is an odd choice of phrase; Israel’s collective punishment of the Palestinians (and now Lebanon) is far far worse than a boycott. It’s as odd to read a secularist like you referring to the Occupation as a"moral" problem and a "sin" rather than a problem of politics or history. Do you think Israeli civil society bears any collective responsibility for the Occupation?
Personally, "the last people [I’d] want to punish for the sins of the Occupation" are the Palestinians. I found Laura Ribeiro’s "The Israeli Boycott of Palestinian Education" a powerful counter-argument to your position on boycotts; I’d be interested in your thoughts. http://www.counterpunch.org/ribeiro06072006.html
Take care, aaron
But
> since you've asked about Michael's opinions - you're
> citing from his
> new blog - strike up a conversation with him about
> your disagreements
> with him concerning this specific issue, drop him a
> line
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com