Of course, Marty and I are on the same side in opposition to the war and, probably in most of our criticism of ANSWER. I think I have proved my part about Gitlin having no place within the anti-war movement since virtually every thing he does recently would seem to undermine it while enhancing his position as the "go to guy" by the mainstream media when its minions want to trash the movement. Add to Gitlin, Michael Lerner, whose ego and need for recognition is even bigger than Gitlin's. Both premise much of their accusations against ANSWER on the spurious charge that it is anti-Semitic which they equate with Israel-bashing. This is, of course, nonsense.
To any one with an iota of decency, Israel is as deserving of being verbally bashed as any country on the planet, given that it is democracy, at least for its Jews, who have elected and then re-elected a man who is widely know throughout the world as a war criminal and who has continued to behave like it. The idea that Israel should be immune from the harshest of political criticism--which is far short of the economic sanctions that it merits--is ridiculous on its face. As for United for Peace, it was not surprising to see another "progressive" rabbi, Arthur Waskow, tell the Jewish weekly Forward, that the U for P organizers made sure that the
Israel-Palestine issue would not be on Feb. 15 agenda.
I won't reargue the Humphrey issue again. If the left at the end had cut Hube some slack it wouldn't have made any difference.
Jeff
> Marty Jezer wrote:
> Subject: Re: [sixties-l] response to Cox and Blankfort
>
> TAs we come closer to war, it's seems silly to argue about past =
> wars.....but
>
> Re: Gitlin. I heard him on Terri Gross this week criticizing the =
> anti-war movement for aligning itself or following A.N.S.W.E.R. His =
> critique of A.N.S.W.E.R. was correct, I thought, but it was a discussion =
> for the NATION or some other lefty journal; in as much as the mainstream =
> media has not raised the issue of A.N.S.W.E.R's awful politics, Gitlin, =
> to my mind, should not have made his critique on public radio. The best =
> response to A.N.W.E.R. (as I have been writing in my weekly newspaper =
> column since October) is to create a movement that more accurately =
> reflects the politics of the participants. This is happening with United =
> for Peace.=20
>
> As for the Humphrey business. The anti-war movement didn't have to =
> endorse Humphrey or rejoin the Democratic Party; all we had to do was =
> cut him a little slack the last weeks of the campaign and then him. =
> Instead, we promoted the idea that a victory for Nixon would create a =
> revolutionary situation that would benefit us. We were wrong in terms of =
> the analysis that went into that position and in what ultimately =
> happened. Sometimes it's better to vote for the lesser of two evils when =
> the other guy represents true, rather than rhetorical, evil.
>
> Whatever the differences that Jeff, I and others share, we are, I =
> believe, in solidarity in opposing the Bush Administration and the =
> coming war.
>
> Marty Jezer
> Author:
> Stuttering: A Life Bound Up in Words
> Abbie Hoffman: American Rebel
> The Dark Ages: Life in the US 1945-1960
> Rachel Carson (Women of Achievement Series)
>
> Subscribe to my Friday commentary (by reply e-mail). It's free.
> Visit my home page: www.sover.net/~mjez
>
> - ---- Original Message -----=20
> From:=20
> To: sixties-l@lists.village.virginia.edu=20
> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 12:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [sixties-l] response to Cox and Blankfort=20
>
> > Despite our different interpretations of what was wrong and right =
> about the anti-war movement, I do not put Marty Jezer in the same =
> category as I do Tod Gitlin who seems to be edging his way into the =
> current anti-war movement, if for nothing else than to get more material =
> for another book, to become an expert on the current movement, and to =
> smear anyone who suggests this war might also be "for Israel" as an =
> antisemite or a self-hating
> > Jew. Probably, all three.
>
> Regarding the position vis a vis Humphrey and the movement, Marty did =
> not deal with the apparent truth of what I had said, i.e., that, if the =
> movement, which had broken away totally from the Democrats, had =
> demonstrated anything close to a mindset that would have had it, or a =
> major segment of it, endorsing Humphrey, that mindset would have been =
> recognized by the Democrats and LBJ would not have dropped out of the =
> race. That's the point
> that has been ignored.
>
> Jeff Blankfort
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 27 2003 - 02:35:55 EST