TIKKUN Community members organized in the Jewish community and in other spiritual communities to bring people to the October 2002 demonstrations against the war, organized by ANSWER. Rabbi Lerner was an original signatory to the Not In Our Name statement and endorsed the ANSWER rally.

But at that rally the ANSWER coalition put forward an array of speakers who used anti-Israel rhetoric to link the struggle against the Iraq war to Israel-Palestine. This was offensive to a very large numbers of Jews who attended the rally.

We at TIKKUN are very critical of Israeli policy toward Palestinians. We support an end to the Occupation, withdrawal of Israel to the pre-67 borders (with minor border modifications mutually agreed to by both sides), reparations for Palestinian refugees, an end to terror by both sides, and military arrangements for security for both Israel and Palestine. For this position, TIKKUN has been vilified in the organized Jewish community for being anti-Semitic and self-hating Jews. So we are particularly sensitive to not allowing those kinds of charges to be used when people are articulating legitimate criticisms of Israeli policy.

However, what demonstrators experienced at the ANSWER rally was something far different—a climate of hostility to Israel which can only be understood as a manifestation of underlying anti-Semitism. The ANSWER organization is dominated by a group of people from the Workers World Party who do not believe that Israel has a right to exist. Using their position as organizers (meaning, that they were the first ones to get the permit and announce these demonstrations), they have used the Iraq war demonstrations to recruit people to their narrow sectarian worldview.

Of course, Israel deserves criticism for its human rights abuses. We have done that consistently in Tikkun magazine, and in full page advertisements we bought in the NY Times, LA Times and S.F. Chronicle. Yet so do the acts of terror against random Israeli civilians by groups claiming to represent the liberation struggle of the Palestinian people. But ANSWER has not permitted any critique of Palestinian violence—only of Israel. Moreover, while Israel's denial of human rights is worthy of critique, it is not more deserving of critique than the far greater acts of human rights abuses perpetrated by Saddam Hussein against his own people, and the genocidal acts of mass murder against the Kurds. But ANSWER did not permit any criticisms of Saddam Hussein. Nor of the human rights abuses of China in Tibet, Russia in Chechnya, or of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc Criticisms of Israel are not inherently anti-Semitic, they become anti-Semitic when raised in a context in which the topic is something else (say, war against Iraq), but the only country in the world being critiqued for human rights abuses is Israel. As we've argued elsewhere, it is not racist to critique Black crime in the U.S. in the context of discussing white crime. But it is racist if the focus suddenly becomes Black crime and there is no mention of the far greater reality of white crime. Singling out Israel in the context of a war rally about Iraq is racist. And so too is calling for "self-determination" of all peoples in the world, but not including the self-determination of the Jewish people. Yet ANSWER’s leadership has made it clear that Israel has no right to exist.

It was in the aftermath of this first demonstration that we at TIKKUN were faced with a real problem. How could we deal with the anti-Semitism that was being expressed at this demonstration, yet without undermining the struggle against the Iraq war? Our first response was to simply ignore it, to hope that it would go away, and to not want to fight against ANSWER which, after all, had done the leg work for getting the demonstration together. We encouraged people in the Tikkun Community to communicate their upset. But when people told us that they were getting hostile responses from ANSWER, we were left in a quandary: what to do about the next demonstration on January 18th.

We decided on the following path: we would work to bring people to the demonstrations and urge our tens of thousands of readers and others connected to the Tikkun Community to actively participate. But at the same time, we would tell our community of our upset about the anti-Semitism and about the whole way that these demonstrations are organized (excessive rhetoric from speakers, rather than serious analysis of the war and significant responses to it—a parade of 50 speakers shouting slogans rather than presenting serious thought or analysis). Still, local Tikkun Community affiliates chartered buses to bring people, and we estimate that we brought several thousand people to the rallies in Washington DC and San Francisco in January.

Yet once again, the participants returned with a great deal of upset about the anti-Semitic way that Israel had been dragged into this event. The discourse of blaming Israel had escalated, as did a climate of hostility that many demonstrators encountered from groups that had set up tables or who were passing out leaflets. Free speech? Well, we seriously doubt that had there been groups setting up tables or distributing leaflets calling for an end to women's rights or for gays to go back into the closet or for an end to Black liberation that this kind of free speech would have been tolerated. Moreover, the Workers World speakers, who were presented as leadership of ANSWER, were continually asserting that those who were there demonstrating were demonstrating not only against Iraq but also against Israel. ANSWER organizers were sent through the crowd to collect monies said to be for the purpose of paying for the demonstration. Yet on their t-shirts was a slogan calling for the "liberation of Palestine from the Mediterranean to the Jordan river"—in other words, the ending of the State of Israel.

Many of us who are fighting for a two-state solution were made to feel that our association with this activity was being represented as support for this anti-Israel hostility which was objectively anti-Semitic. When asked whether they supported the right for Israel to exist, ANSWER's leadership said: "We should leave that to the people of the region." That, of course, is code for "no," because it is well known that the majority of the people of the region would not vote to support Jewish self-determination, any more than if we said let Tibet's independence be decided by the people of the region would the Tibetans have a chance in a vote with a billion Chinese, or if we said let the Chechnya independence be determined by the people of the region would they have a chance with the Russians making this decision, nor would segregation in the South have ended had the position been to allow the people of the South (people of the region) decide on rights for Blacks. These subtleties may be lost on others—but they indicate the double standard and anti-Semitism underlying this group's approach. Everyone else in the world has the right to national self-determination, except for the Jews.

So, at that point, Rabbi Lerner went more public with his criticism of ANSWER and its role in the anti-war demonstrations. He agreed to an interview with the New York Times in which he severely criticized ANSWER’s anti-Semitism. Surprisingly, when the Times story came out it ignored all of his criticism of anti-Semitism and only quoted a point he had made about the way the anti-war movement rallies were being suffused with irrelevant and off-putting rhetoric. He happily associated TIKKUN with another anti-war coalition, United For Peace and Justice. United for Peace and Justice was, along with Not In Our Name and a few other groups, joining with ANSWER to sponsor the demonstration on the weekend of February 16.

Lerner was invited to be on the Brian Lehrer show (WNYC) after a segment in which the national spokesperson for ANSWER was challenged about anti-Semitism. In a candid statement of the position of his organization, the spokesperson said that "we would not allow a pro-Israel speaker" at one of our demonstrations. Lerner critiqued this kind of Israel-bashing, insisting that there was a big difference between being pro-Israel and being pro-Ariel Sharon and his repressive policies. Just as TIKKUN has had to argue against the attempts by Jewish right-wingers to say that TIKKUN and other progressive groups are anti-Israel when they publicly critique the Occupation, so TIKKUN has had to stand up against anti-Semites who make the same false equation and insist that one must be anti-Israel if one is critical of the Occupation. But most liberal and progressive Jews do not fit this dichotomy—we are both pro-Israel and against the Occupation. We in the Tikkun Community are following a "progressive middle path" which is both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine.

After the Lehrer show, Lerner was informed by Tikkun's representative on the UFPJ committee working on the demonstration that his name had been brought up as a possible speaker by a non-Tikkun person, but that others had squashed the suggestion because they had entered into an agreement with ANSWER to not allow any speakers who had publicly criticized any of the sponsoring organizations.

Rabbi Lerner had never requested to speak. Despite recent attempts to make it seem that his primary interest is promoting his own appearance at these events, he has had no particular desire to speak at these rallies because he feels that three minutes is not enough time to give any sort of substantive talk. His primary concern is to address anti-Semitism within the movement and to strengthen it in other ways as well so that it can more effectively express the aspirations of the American people for a world of peace and justice..

As Rabbi Lerner has said repeatedly since that time, had he been rejected as a speaker because some thought he wasn't a smart or effective as a communicator, he would have had no problem with the whole process. But he was blackballed for something entirely different: he had publicly critiqued one of the groups organizing this rally—and his critique had been to stand up for an end to anti-Semitism as it had been articulated by the ANSWER leadership in previous rallies. It was this willingness to critique ANSWER’s anti-Semitism, when many fellow Jews have fallen silent for fear that they would be labeled disruptive were they to publicly voice those questions, that is the specific behavior which made Lerner “a public critic” and hence not eligible to speak. In this context, it makes little difference that the coalitions, hearing of this upset, decided to make sure that they would have other rabbis or Jews speak who would not be likely to raise these issues in public.

In the next few days, Rabbi Lerner dedicated his efforts to trying to mobilize people against the Iraq war and to countering publicly the propaganda from Powell and Bush. But when Rabbi Lerner returned his attention to the demonstration, he wrote an op-ed critiquing ANSWER, but also critiquing the willingness of the other groups involved to accede to ANSWER's conditions for work in coalition.

Lerner asked the following questions: Should a movement that professes a commitment to human rights, civil liberties, democratic ideals and diversity allow for the suppression of dissent within its own ranks? What kind of movement could agree to not allow people to speak solely on the grounds that at some previous moment they had criticisms of the movement's leadership? Further, even if the movement had entered into agreements of this sort to suppress dissent, would it have kept those agreements if, say, the criticism had been leveled by the editor of the leading feminist or leading gay or leading African American organization-would that editor have been banned for that reason? Or, was it instead that the leadership of these other organizations were going along with ANSWER because they didn't really feel that the issue of anti-Semitism in the movement was such a big deal, and that raising it would destroy organizational unity?

Well, that is the response that he got. Lerner was told that the organizations involved felt that having unity with ANSWER was so hard-fought and such an accomplishment that it would not be worth it to challenge this agreement. Yes, Lerner was told privately, many of the partners in this coalition had their own criticisms, but it was more important to preserve unity.

Lerner's counter was this: 1. The goal of TIKKUN's criticisms was not to advance organizational unity among leftie fringe groups, but to advance the actual real-world support for the anti-war movement. In the real world in which we exist, the Left’s history of anti-Semitism, coupled with its mind-numbing rhetoric, has weakened the movement and made it impossible for many morally sensitive people to feel comfortable at these large demonstrations. Jews were not the only people being turned off by the anti-Semitism. So, we argued, attempting to raise this issue in a public way, while simultaneously urging people to support the demonstrations, was actually an attempt to broaden rather than narrow the base of support. 2. When women, African Americans and gays raised these kinds of issues about insensitivity of the movement they were also met with hostility and the charge that they were undermining unity. Just as it is some Jews, even some rabbis, who might make that charge against TIKKUN today, so it was women, Blacks, and gays inside the anti-war movement of the 60s who OPPOSED raising those issues when they were raised by other women, Blacks and gays who said that they could be both supportive of the anti-war movement AND critical of its sexism, racism and homophobia. In fact, these critics turned out to be right. Their criticisms led to a deep change in the way that the anti-war people operated, and that made it possible for more women, gays, and peoples of color to identify with that movement. The criticism had been met defensively and condemned, but it actually helped broaden and strengthen the movement. And that is exactly what we are doing in TIKKUN-supporting the movement, but insisting that the issue of anti-Semitism become a public issue to be discussed and challenged. And yes, there will be other progressive Jews who will feel that we should keep quiet for the sake of the greater good, and will thereby provide cover for ANSWER and for its anti-Semitism (though that is not their intention). 3. The focus on presenting dozens of speakers at these events has been a response to this "organizational unity" concern, but not to the more important need to actually figure out an effective strategy to broaden support for the anti-war movement. The current leadership of all of these groups has presented few new interesting ideas about how to deal with the fact that the Democrats have largely gone along with the war (e.g. Senators Feinstein and Biden plus many of the Democratic candidates for the presidency) and that even many of those who have uttered some questions (e.g. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, minority leader of the Democrats in the House) have not taken a principled oppositional role, but only questioned the timing and what allies we should have in the invasion of Iraq. (This is not the case for all Democrats—see, for example, the principled statement against the war that Congressman Dennis Kocinich makes in his article in TIKKUN Magazine’s March/April 2003 issue, which should be on the stands by February 25th). TIKKUN Magazine has put forward a variety of strategic ideas on how to counter this situation. Rabbi Lerner has considered a campaign in SF to let Nancy Pelosi know that none of us who are against the war will vote for her if she does not provide vigorous anti-war leadership in the House (as opposed to the wishy-washy stuff she put out when given a national audience at the time of the State of the Union address last month). Instead of inviting Pelosi to speak, as though she is on our side, she should be given an unequivocal message that she cannot count on her liberal base if she does not make this issue central, rather than her apparent strategy of relying on people turning to the Democrats because they don’t like how the economy is functioning. Her thinking, and that of most other liberal Democrats, revolves around how to get re-elected. Our thinking revolves around how to build a world of love and justice and kindness and generosity. Our leverage is precisely to let these Democrats know that unless they represent our agenda, they can be sure that we will not be there for them when they ask for our support. Well, you don’t have to agree with us on this particular point, but at least get that what we are thinking about is how to develop a strategy to stop the war, rather than a strategy for how to unite the leftie fringe groups. TIKKUN has other strategic ideas about how to strengthen the anti-war movement in the streets (some of which are presented in the March and some in the May issues of the magazine coming up). But instead of embracing TIKKUN and seeking ways to incorporate our perspective into the discussion, the rest of the anti-war leadership has decided to circle the wagons around its support for ANSWER, and to switch the entire discussion by claiming that the only concern Rabbi Lerner had was to speak at this event. Try to imagine how stupid this is. TIKKUN Magazine is the only magazine in the entire Jewish world to have unequivocally condemned the war in Iraq. Instead of embracing it and the tens of thousands of people it represents as an important element in the anti-war movement, leaders of the other groups like United for Peace and Justice and Not In Our Name have allowed the public discussion to be fixated on Lerner's (actually non-existent) desire to speak at this event, rather than to publicly acknowledge that the issues Lerner raised were legitimate and should be explored Could you imagine if the one Chinese, Japanese, Italian, Greek, Latino, Presbyterian, Catholic, Lutheran, Unitarian or Muslim newspaper in America that opposed the war had made it possible for their editor to speak at these rallies how stupid it would have to be to turn that down on the grounds of having previously criticized one of the organizing organizations? Would that show that the leadership was really interested in broadening the movement, or would it show instead that the leadership was more interested in protecting itself, and had thereby shown itself to not really be caring about broadening the movement’s appeal? Would the whole matter have been dropped by TIKKUN had these groups turned around and offered Rabbi Lerner an opportunity to speak (which they never did)? Absolutely not. Rabbi Lerner responded to such suggestions by saying that he was not seeking to speak, he was seeking to challenge the insensitivity to the problems of anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing in the Left. The issue is not now and has never been Michael Lerner and his role-it is about the substantive ideas that Rabbi Lerner raises. So what would have been sufficient to quiet Lerner before the demonstration? Lerner was asked that question and here was his response: Let United for Peace and Justice and NION issue the following public statement: "We acknowledge that there has been in previous demonstrations an insensitivity to the issue of anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing. Although we have decided to work with one of the groups that contributed to that atmosphere in previous demonstrations, we recognize that this is an important issue which deserves our public attention. So we hereby commit ourselves to an intensive process of internal education of our activists and of dedicating serious attention at our next mass rallies to educating the larger progressive community about the need to challenge and combat all ways in which legitimate criticism of Israeli treatment of Palestinians gets presented in anti-Semitic or Israel-bashing ways. We thank TIKKUN for raising these issues, and will consult with them in the process of developing this education." Variants of this statement were proposed to the leadership of the anti-war rallies for the weekend of February 16th, and they responded by saying "No way can this happen. We feel it more important to keep unity with ANSWER." In that circumstance, Rabbi Lerner continued to voice his criticisms, even though others were acting as though his real agenda was to get to speak or to undermine the demonstrations. On the contrary, at every occasion in which Rabbi Lerner has spoken, he has insisted that the most important thing is to come to the demonstration and to find other ways to publicly challenge the war against Iraq. We at TIKKUN support the demonstrations and appreciate the efforts of those who have worked to organize them, and intend to remain a voice within the United for Peace and Justice despite our criticisms of how they have so far dealt with these issues. But we completely reject the notion that these organizations ARE the anti-war movement. There are tens of millions of Americans who oppose this war. Some of them have been convinced of this position by what they have learned from the Tikkun Community, others from what they've learned in their churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. Others still have been encouraged by the teachings of progressives in universities or writers in the popular press. Still others are responding to the moral intuitions of their hearts. This broad group is not represented by any one or any set of organizations or coalitions, though sometimes some elements of this larger group do find expression through the coalitions or organizations. It is arrogant and ridiculous to imagine that critiquing these organizations or coalitions is tantamount to "hurting the anti-war movement." But one thing is certain: the anti-war movement has not yet been successful in finding a way to make its message politically effective, and that is why opportunists like Diane Feinstein and some of the liberals running for President in the Democratic party have been willing to support the war. Rather than push TIKKUN away, or demean the role of Rabbi Lerner, a serious leadership would attempt to include him and us in its decision-making, and, give serious attention to the perspective developed in Tikkun for how to reach out and reframe the issues around Iraq in a way that might build mass support for a peaceful approach. When such leadership emerges, we in TIKKUN will be responsive. Meanwhile, we will be doing our part to engage the smartest and most creative strategic thinkers to engage in this conversation, a conversation to which anyone who agrees with the perspective we've outlined in this statement is invited to join by contacting  RabbiLerner@tikkun.org. And we will continue to bring as many people as possible into the streets to challenge the war makers. We are still waiting for the organizers of this demonstration to make the statement suggested above-and to convene a public teach-in on the issues of anti-Semitism in their movement, and through that to generate a dialogue on these issues, in which The Tikkun Community would be happy to participate. In the end, we believe that the movement to build a different kind of world must reflect the world we seek to build, and for that reason we invite anyone who is committed to a world of justice, peace, open-heartedness, love, generosity, and kindness to work with us. --February 13, 2003

P.S. One way to work with us is to actually JOIN The Tikkun Community—by going to www.tikkun.org, and signing up there. Our next major activity: a Teach-In to Congress on how to build safety and security for the U.S., and for Israel/Palestine—which will be held June 1-4 in Washington, D.C. We wish to bring people from every Congressional district in the U.S. to D.C. to build an alternative to AIPAC and to project a vision of how to build peace based not on domination and control of the other, but on kindness, generosity, repentance, and reconciliation. If you’d like to help us, please contact  Marisa@tikkun.org if you live East of Chicago, and  Robyn@tikkun.org if you live West of Chicago.