Analysis: Anti-War Organizer's Politics Cause Rift

SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 15 — When the first large antiwar rallies began in October, here and in Washington, few of the tens of thousands of marchers had even heard of International ANSWER., one of the main organizers.

Some pundits, most of them conservative, complained that International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) was an offshoot of the Trotskyite Workers World Party, which has defended dictators such as Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and North Korea's Kim Jong Il and decried the state of Israel. The critics said this proved that the antiwar movement was out of step with society's mainstream.

But as the rallies grew larger and more prominent, drawing hundreds of thousands of people in San Francisco and tens of thousands more in smaller protests nationwide, ANSWER's politics seemed moot. To the vast majority of people marching this weekend in global demonstrations against war on Iraq, they still are. Yet over the last several days, ANSWER's politics have created a rift within the leadership of the antiwar movement that demonstrates the difficulty in having such a small, radical group play a prominent role in organizing the peace effort.

The problem was exposed when Rabbi Michael Lerner, one of the nation's most prominent liberal Jewish leaders and editor of the San Francisco-based magazine Tikkun, went public to complain that he was "banned" from speaking at the Sunday rally here, because ANSWER objected to his positions on Israel. (Lerner favors a two-state solution, while ANSWER is fervently anti-Israel.) "A complete falsification," countered Richard Becker of ANSWER Lerner was not invited to speak, said Becker and other rally organizers, because he had previously "attacked" ANSWER's positions, and organizers of the rally had agreed not to have speakers who had criticized any of the organizing groups.

Lerner had criticized ANSWER for allowing too many speakers who believe that the United States is threatening to attack Iraq because Israel wants the war and far too few speakers "who share my view that this war is not in the best interests of either Israel or of the United States."

He was also quoted in a newspaper saying: "There are good reasons to oppose the war and Saddam. Still, it feels that we are being manipulated when subjected to mindless speeches and slogans whose knee-jerk anti-imperialism rarely articulates the deep reasons we should oppose corporate globalization."

In a news release, the four coalitions organizing the antiwar demonstrations — Bay Area United Against War, Not In Our Name project, United for Peace and Justice and International ANSWER — wrote: "When members of the Tikkun community, who have actively participated in the organizing meetings for Feb. 16, suggested to Bay Area United for Peace and Justice, that it propose Michael Lerner as a speaker, it was explained by members of UFPJ that since he had publicly attacked ANSWER in both the New York Times and Tikkun community e-mail newsletters, his inclusion in the program would violate the agreement among the Feb. 16 organizing groups."

In other words, dissent among dissenters was not allowed.

But many national leaders of the antiwar movement refuse to accept the San Francisco coalitions' explanation. In a letter on the Web site Commondreams.org, more than 150 of the most notable progressive writers and intellectuals in the country, including Howard Zinn, Barbara Ehrenreich, Stanley Aronowitz, Jack Newfield and Frances Fox Piven, strongly protest the refusal to allow Lerner to speak and they take direct aim at ANSWER: "We believe this is a serious mistake, and that it exemplifies ANSWER's unfitness to lead mass mobilizations against war in Iraq."

Privately, organizers of the San Francisco rally are furious at Lerner for going public and thus, they said, giving conservative critics such as Rush Limbaugh an opportunity to exploit the divisions in the antiwar movement. Publicly, they criticized the news media for focusing on internal divisions rather than on the strength and broad base of the growing movement.

"There's a lot of focus recently on divisions in the antiwar movement," said Andrea Buffa, co-director of the United for Peace and Justice coalition. "What I think is a lot more reflective of reality is the incredible way that all different kinds of people and organizations are bridging their differences to try to stop this war. The vast majority of people who have been going to peace marches are just regular people who aren't associated with any organization — whether United for Peace and Justice or ANSWER"