Let Anti-War Rabbi Michael Lerner Speak

Rabbi Michael Lerner has been banned from speaking at the antiwar rally in San Francisco this Sunday, February 16. One of the rally organizers, Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER), has stated that it will not allow a "pro-Israel" speaker to take the stage -- despite the fact that Rabbi Lerner has been an outspoken critic of Israeli policy in the occupied territories, has endorsed ANSWER's antiwar rallies in the past, has signed the Not in Our Name petition against the war, and is widely known to be among the most progressive of American rabbis. Other coalitions organizing the rally, including Not in Our Name and United for Peace and Justice, have acceded to ANSWER's opposition to Lerner, on the grounds that they had previously accepted as a condition for participation in the demonstration the agreement that if one of the groups vetoed a speaker that all would have to agree.

We, the undersigned, protest ANSWER's refusal to let Rabbi Lerner speak at this Sunday's rally. At a time when the antiwar movement needs as broad a platform and as broad an appeal as possible, ANSWER has chosen instead to put the interests of sectarianism ahead of the interests of all those who oppose this foolish and unnecessary war. We believe this is a serious mistake, and that it exemplifies ANSWER's unfitness to lead mass mobilizations against war in Iraq.

Partial List of Signers:

Greg Goldin, writer
Robert W. McChesney, writer
Jack Newfield, writer
Howard Zinn
Doug Ireland, writer
Ariel Dorfman, writer
Marc Cooper, writer
Michael Berube, Penn State
Candace Falk
Janine Jaquet, Nation Institute
John Powers, writer
Katha Pollitt, writer
Suzi Weissman, professor and author
Eric Alterman, writer
Kateri Butler, writer
Todd Gitlin, writer
Suzy Marks
Wally Marks
Michael Pugliese
Judy Bertelsen
Nelson Lichtenstein
Richard Falk
Tom Christie, writer
Eyal Press, writer
Jon Wiener, historian UCI
Mark Schubb
Lee Smith, writer
Michael Balter, writer
Carl Bromley, Editorial Director, Nation Books
Harold Meyerson, writer
Stew Albert
Judy Albert
Al Wasserman
Anne Wasserman
Celeste Fremon, writer
Matthew Rothschild, Editor, The Progressive
Stanley Aronowitz
Isaac Balbus
David Bensman
Ken Brociner
Shirley Bryant
Chaz Bufe
Leo Casey
Bogdan Denitch
Tom Edminster
Stuart Elliott
Irene Theodore Heinstein
Maurice Isserman
Peter Kosenko
Justin Paulson
Jason Schulman
Timothy Sears
Clifford L. Staples
Luke Weiger
Arthur Wilke
Ian Williams
Ellen Willis
Adam Shatz, writer
Emily Jane Goodman
Sonia Jaffe Robbins
Phyllis Chesler
Richard Healey
Dorothy Healey
Roy Ulrich, attorney
Naomi Glauberman, writer
Judith Long, The Nation
Maurice Zeitlin, author and professor
Bruce Shapiro, writer
Tad Daley, UCLA
Andrew Gumbel, journalist
Dr. Aryeh Cohen, University of Judaism, Los Angeles
Nalini Lasiewicz, Lasiewicz Foundation
Barbara Osborn, Liberty Hill Foundation
Fr. Chris Ponnet, Co-Chair Pax Christi USA, Los Angeles Chapter
Anita Frankel, former Public Affairs Dir. Pacifica Radio
Roane Carey, The Nation
Reverend Ed Bacon, Rector, All Saints Church, Pasadena CA
Prof. Steve Ross, USC
Dr. Lawrence Littwin, CSUN
Kenneth Pomeranz
Ella Taylor, writer
Daniel Sokatch, Executive Director, Progressive Jewish Alliance
Francisco Letelier, writer
Devra Weber
Jules Tygiel, SFSU
Ellen Carol DuBois, UCLA
Mike Davis, UCI
Marla Stone, Occidental College
Terrence McNally
Vicki Ruiz
Peter Dreier, Occidental College
Bobbi Murray, Journalist
Ginger Varney
Kevin B. Anderson, Purdue University
Jody Zonenchin
Robert H. Silk, Attorney
Susan T. Silk. PhD, Biochemist
Frank Smyth, journalist
Laurie Salen
Dave Anderson
Sam Bottone
David Nasaw, CUNY Grad Center
Moshe Machover
Robin Arie-Donch
Amie Potsic
Ana Villa-Lobos
Constance Bernstein
Gretchen Mackler-Lipow
Arthur Lipow
Maggie Helwig, writer
Rabbi Shaya Isenberg, University of Florida
Richard H. Schwartz, College of Staten Island
Marcia Diaz
Howard A. Rodman
Rabbi Rachel Cowan, Nathan Cummings Foundation
Scott Tucker
Daniel Pope, University of Oregon
Jordan Elgrably, Open Tent Middle East Coalition
Don Bustany, host "Middle East in Focus" KPFK
Marge Piercy
Richard Applebaum

Don Bustany, Jordan Elgrably, Robert Silk, Bruce Shapiro, Matthew Rothschild, Katha Pollitt, Robert W. McChesney...

Howard Zinn????

Oh yeah, these people are rabid racist imperialists. What was ANSWER thinking?

Michael Lerner, like all other anti-Communists and supporters of Israel, to the extent that his son is a paratrooper in the Israeli military (not a refusenik but a SUPPORTER of Israel's murderous deeds) should not be allowed to speak at our peace rallies. Religion, is of course, superstition, and Michael Lerner should get a real job and read more science books too. There are lots of right-wingers who claim to be against the war who are not allowed to speak at our peace marches. We do not want anything to do with anti-communists and promoters of Israel's war machine, which Michael Lerner proudly is. He even said on KPFA radio news tonight, 2/11/03 (Berkeley's affiliate to KPFK) that he objected to people wearing the kaffiyeh, the Arab scarves at our peace demonstrations! This man is too stupid for words and we certainly do not want to hear his words from the main stage. He can get a bullhorn and spew forth his bull from the street.

On San Francisco Independent Media, we have this very informative article and some comments:
From:
http://www.sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/02/1572342.php
Is Rabbi Lerner a Racist?
by Belinda Green Monday February 10, 2003 at 05:56 PM

It is time for Tikkun to truly reflect whether it promotes values of supremacy and apartheid, or values of universalist humanity. If you are not sure, read on... The articles speak for themselves.

Lerner Michael Lerner continues his racist attack after Tikkun wrote the following about our great success in pushing the war back in the historical march of January
18th, mobilizing about three quarters of a million people, :

"... the Tikkun community have put forward is that the mobilizations have
been run by a group called ANSWER, itself dominated by a communist sect group which is filled with hate toward Israel and wishes to see it dismantled. It has used
anti-war demonstrations to demean Israel and to picture the war in Iraq as a war for Israeli interests. "

If this and the attacks in the New York Times were not enough, Rabbi Lerner decided to attack the peace movement, even while the war criminal Sharon is running
the apartheid state of Israel and the Bush administration pushes for war. It is time for Tikkun to truly reflect whether it promotes values of supremacy and apartheid,
or values of universalist humanity. If you are not sure, read on... The articles speak for themselves.



> > Progressive Rabbi Banned From Speaking at Peace
> > Rally Because of His
> > Pro-Israel Stance
> >
> >
> > Rabbi Michael Lerner can not speak at the peace
> > rally in San Francisco, February 16th. That was the
> > response given when various groups proposed Rabbi
> > Lerner, thinking it logical to have him speak since
> > he is one of the most prominent peace voices in the
> > Jewish world.
> > But Rabbi Lerner was blackballed and
> > banned by A.N.S.W.E.R., one of the four organizing
> > committees for the S.F. demonstration expected to
> > attract hundreds of thousands. The reason: Lerner
> > had been critical of the way that A.N.S.W.E.R. has
> > used the anti-war demonsrtations to put forward
> > anti-Israel propaganda.
> > Lerner, editor of Tikkun magazine, is
> > himself an outspoken critic of Israeli policy. But
> > he is also a Zionist who believes in the State of
> > Israel and supported his son to serve in the Israeli
> > army in a combat union (the tzanchanim or
> > paratroopers). But Lerner and Tikkun magazine have
> > been equally critical of acts of terror by
> > Palestinians, and they have called for Palestinians
> > to follow a path of non-violence. In his 2003 book
> > Healing Israel/Palestine, Lerner calls for a
> > "progressive middle path" that is both pro-Israel
> > and pro-Palestine, and argues that the best
> > interests of each can only be achieved if the other
> > side also achieves its best interests.
> > Other coalitions supporting the rally ,
> > including the United For Peace and Justice and the
> > Not In Our Name, went along with the ban, arguing
> > that they had previously accepted as a condition for
> > participation in the demonstration the agreement
> > that if one of the groups vetoed a speaker that all
> > would have to go along. A.N.S.W.E.R. spokesperson,
> > speaking on the Brian Lehrer show of WNYC, said that
> > they would not agree to have a "pro-Israel" speaker
> > at their rally. Meanwhile, there are many in the
> > organized Jewish world who will not Lerner speak
> > because he is too critical of Israeli policy.
> > Beyt Tikkun synagogue, where Rabbi
> > Lerner serves as a rabbi in San Francisco, issued
> > the following statement: "Rabbi Lerner has urged us
> > to continue to support the demonstration for peace
> > on February 16th, and we will be there to show that
> > many Jews oppose this war. However, we do not
> > believe that had A.N.S.W.E.R. been criticized by a
> > major feminist or gay leader and then vetoed that
> > leader to speak at a demonstration that the other
> > coalition partners would go along with that. So why
> > should criticism of anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing
> > be treated differently? A.N.S.W.E.R. doesn't believe
> > that Israel has a right to exist. We are
> > enthusiastic supporters of Israel, even though
> > totally critical of its current policies. So why
> > should our voice of critique of A.N.S.W.E.R.'s
> > anti-Israel policy serve as a justification for
> > excluding our rabbi from speaking? This seems a
> > dangerous double-standard and conveys, probably
> > unintentionally, the message that somehow
> > anti-Semitism is not a significant issue for
> > anti-war protesters."
> > Rabbi Lerner said, "I'm honored that
> > some people wanted me to speak, and dismayed that
> > the specific reason I'm not allowed to speak is my
> > criticism of the anti-Israel bias of A.N.S.W.E.R.
> > But I believe that the message of peace is far more
> > pressing at the moment than the message of fighting
> > the anti-Semitism among some of the march's
> > organizers. "

Comment:
Rabbi Lerner's...
by Hypocrisy Exposed Monday February 10, 2003 at 06:06 PM



It's really so hypocritical for Rabbi Lerner to encourage his son to be an Israeli paratrooper! That's as bad as if a Palestinian parent who would encourage their child to become a suicide bomber! And don't give me that "suicide bombers kill only civilians" bull. AS IF the IDF doesn't randomly shoot into marketplaces, drop one-ton bombs on crowded apartment buildings in the middle of the night, shoot little boys with rocks, shoot missiles into Palestinian homes and office buildings... and in the process killing hundreds of Palestinian civilians. AND in case you haven't noticed, the Palestinians don't have an army however Israel does.

See what the two-state solution camp REALLY believes in? APARTHEID and a refusal to share the land of Palestine as equals with the indigenous people, the Palestinians.

Lerner Must Not Be Allowed To Speak
by Cathy Clark Tuesday February 11, 2003 at 12:48 AM



Lerner is trying to 'nose' his way on to the platform at the upcoming peace march even though the organizers have told him that he is not welcome. His racism does NOT belong in the peace movement! He has no right to speak about peace while greedy racist murderous selfish zionists control the fulcrum of power and are commiting multiple genocides and mass rapes against Arabs, Muslim, Hindus, Buddhists and Christians every day!!! Lerner is a Racist!!!! Lerner MUST be confronted by the all the non-zionist people of the world!!! Death to zionism!!!

Again, Protest now and protest often along-side answer. But, to quote Michael Lerner, he seeks a

> "progressive middle path" that is both pro-Israel
> > and pro-Palestine, and argues that the best
> > interests of each can only be achieved if the other
> > side also achieves its best interests.

What are the interests of Palestinians. A homeland.
What are the interests of Israel. A homeland.
Death to zionism? OK, lets look at this.
There are 7 million jews living in israel right now.

Are you calling for all their death?

Charming. Very charming. Lerner's call for both a pro-palestinian and pro-israeli stance is not racist. It avoids another genocide

Is anyone here for a Christian Fundamentalist State?
Is anyone here for a Muslim Fundamentalist State?

We laugh at such a proposal! A theocratic state were one's religion determines if you are allowed to own land, work, go to school, vote, or otherwise live a decent normal life is not only an undemocratic idea... it is wholly unattractive.

So how is it that we have come to accept the notion of a "Jewish State"? Is such a formation not a theocracy?

Yes... the Jewish people have suffered horrible crimes committed against them, and everwhere they have been treated like vermin. So the argument goes, Jews need a state of their own where they can be strong and protect their own interests. This sounds logical... and after the horrors inflicted upon the Jews by the Nazi monsters... why not a Jewish State.

But why did it have to be built on top of the Palestinians? Why deny the Palestinians their rights in order to correct historical wrongs done against Jews? Zionism is a political idea, not a religious one. To oppose it is not to oppose the Jewish people. Rather, opposition to the political idea of Zionism is to oppose the idea of a colonial, settler state.

I'm for Jews, Christians, and Moslems living together in peace... with all sharing the land equally. Zionism demands that only Jews have a right to control the Holy Land. Theocracy and religious fundamentalism should be oppossed wherever it is excercised.

I'm not for a jewish state. I lived there as a kid, it SUCKED.

i agree with you as an idea, it sucks. But in reality, there are millions of jews living their right now. Zionism isn't a concept, its a horrible legacy that must be dealt with right now.

That means acknowledging that there are millions of jews living there. If we can acknowledge that fact, then we can start towards a peaceful solution. Otherwise, instead of palestinians being imorally resetled, we have jews being forcibly resettled- and to where?

> Don Bustany, Jordan Elgrably, Robert Silk, Bruce Shapiro, Matthew Rothschild, Katha Pollitt, Robert W. McChesney...

> Howard Zinn????

> Oh yeah, these people are rabid racist imperialists. What was ANSWER thinking?

Since ANSWER didn't claim that any of those people are
"rabid racist imperialists", I can't imagine what *you* are thinking.

No doubt there are well-meaning people on that
list, including my own brother, but that doesn't make
them right, or the claims in this petition right.
The four coalitions (not just ANSWER) chose not
to invite Lerner to speak -- only a propagandist's twist
of semantics translates that into a "ban". They discussed this with Tikkun, which agreed to provide
alternate speakers. Lerner never asked to speak
and has indicated his lack of enthusiasm about
speaking ("What can you say in three minutes?").
But the reluctance of ANSWER to invite someone
critical of them has been turned into an opportunity
by anti-ANSWER sectarians to attack and undermine
ANSWER -- not all that different from the way other
propagandists opportunistically use 9/11 or Saddam Hussein's villainy to their own ends.

There is no doubt much to critcize ANSWER for, and
much that it has been criticized for, but this hypocritical
petition that includes signatories who have railed
against the anti-war movement and anti-war
protesters with such epithets as "flat-earth leftists"
is not an appropriate vehicle when the need is for
mobilization and unity. Anti-ANSWER sectarians
like Cooper, Gitlin, Corn, et. al. can duke it out with ANSWER sectarians at another time. Perhaps Tikkun
will invite ANSWER to its pages for a fair debate -- ha ha.

First off, come to the rally. Protest against the war alongside ANSWER.

You said "The four coalitions (not just ANSWER) chose not
to invite Lerner to speak -- only a propagandist's twist
of semantics translates that into a "ban".

what then does it translate to? A comunal decision to not allow someone to speak? Both arguements are semantic arguements. Calling it a ban is as semantical as calling it ...(what)?

You said "Perhaps Tikkun will invite ANSWER to its pages for a fair debate -- ha ha."

Funny, last time I looked, this wasn't ANSWER's movement for peace. I thought it was everyone's movement for peace. If ANSWER is a part of a coallition that is supposed to be trying to stop a war, one would hope that they would act bigger then themselves- able to see beyond petty arguements.

I don't think this should be blown up to a huge deal as it seems as though both the Tikkun group and the coalition have allready mended some fences, but seriously, this is not just ANSWER's peace movement.

> You said "The four coalitions (not just ANSWER) chose not
to invite Lerner to speak -- only a propagandist's twist
of semantics translates that into a "ban".

> what then does it translate to?

It "translates" into not inviting someone to speak.

> A comunal decision to not allow someone to speak? Both arguements are semantic arguements.

Yes, both yours and the petitioners.

If you want to rail against the whole concept of
selection committees that make decisions that
may not reflect the entire population, that's a much
larger issue. But there are thousands of instances
of such groups inviting one person but not another,
and such failures to invite are not termed "bans".
Lerner has spoken a great deal, through Tikkun
and other journals, on radio, and so on. If he wants
to speak at the rally, he can bring a bullhorn.
The fact remains that people who, whether rightly
or wrongly, are in charge of the speaking invitations, chose not to offer one to Lerner. Coercing them
into inviting Lerner opens the door to other groups
coercing them to invite who ever *they* favor.

> Funny, last time I looked, this wasn't ANSWER's movement for peace.

Nor is it Michael Lerner's. The movement will go on
whether he is invited up on stage or not.

Michael Lerner has claimed that the reason he wants to speak at the anti-war rally is not only to express his opposition to the war but to attack those in the movement whom he has repeatedly accused of "Israel-bashing."

Of course, he is referring to verbal bashing, not acts of violence against the state of Israel, as if what Israel has been doing to the Palestinians for decades. not under a dictator, but under a series of democratically elected governments, has not earned it, at the very minimum, the most harshest of verbal bashings.

Given Israel's history, one cannot be pro-Israel, that is, in support of an exclusivist Jewish state, without being a racist, any more than one could have supported the apartheid system in South Africa (as did Israel) without being a racist. The proof? A Zionist, like Lerner, believes that a Jew, any Jew, including his paratrooper son, has more of a a right to live in historic Palestine, than an Arab Palestinian who was born there.

And what kind of a state does Lerner envision for the Palestinians? A demilitarized one living next to and literally surrounded by the fourth largest military in the world which includes his son. Better an honest fascist like Sharon than a false peacenik like Lerner. And what can one say to all those who signed that petition supporting his right to speak? They are the living ,sad proof of how deeply Zionized the left has become. Most of them, Howard Zinn, included, have never uttered a word in defense of the Palestinian cause, and some, like the odious Tod Gitlin, are committed Zionists.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FEBRUARY 12, 2003

* Bay Area United Against War
* International A.N.S.W.E.R (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism)
* Not In Our Name
* United for Peace and Justice

CONTACT: Bert Knorr (510) 644-8071, (415) 307-8028 (cell)

SAN FRANCISCO - February 11 -- We would like to clarify the misunderstanding regarding Rabbi Michael Lerner's perception that he was 'banned' from speaking at the peace rally. His charges are untrue, and we wish to set the record straight.

As the Bush Administration continues its relentless drive toward war, the mass mobilizations in cities around the world on the weekend of Feb. 15-16 have taken on great significance. Millions of people are expected to demonstrate in cities around the world in what may be the last opportunity to stop a new war on Iraq before it starts.

In the San Francisco Bay Area, four coalitions - each comprised of many organizations and individuals -- have come together to sponsor a broad and united anti-war march and rally on Sunday, Feb. 16. The four coalitions -- Bay Area United Against War, Not In Our Name project, United for Peace & Justice, and the International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) Coalition have been working together successfully for the last several weeks to maximize the turnout on Feb. 16.

One of the first agreements that was made between the groups organizing the Feb. 16 anti-war protest was that none of the coalitions would propose rally speakers who had publicly attacked or worked to discredit one of the coalition groups. 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 A.N.S.W.E.R 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.

It was this issue -- Michael Lerner's public attacks against one of the anti-war coalitions - that resulted in his not being formally proposed as a speaker on Feb. 16; his views on Israel and Palestine had nothing to do with it. Within the anti-war movement, there is a wide spectrum of diverse and opposing views regarding Israel and Palestine, and those views will be heard on Feb. 16. On that day, two rabbis, David Cooper and Pam Frydman-Baugh, both of whose views are similar to those of Michael Lerner, will be speaking. To reiterate, the fact that Michael Lerner was not invited to speak on Feb. 16 was not the consequence of a veto by the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition. None of the coalitions have veto power over the Feb. 16 program.

We strongly abhor all forms of racism and bigotry, including anti-Semitism. At the same time, we don't believe that criticism of Israeli government policies should be labeled as anti-Semitism any more than criticism of U.S. government policy should be labeled as anti-American.

On the eve of a terrible war, we call upon everyone to join together in making Feb. 15-16 a massive and powerful statement for peace and justice. We are heartened by the broad range of participation that is developing for Feb. 16, including within the Jewish community, and encourage one and all to join with us in our efforts to stop the war on Iraq.

KRON4 in SF gave Lerner a 5-minute segment this morning to AGAIN criticize International A.N.S.W.E.R.; no rebuttal time was provided for the party criticized.

ONCE AGAIN, the media is showing their bias and attempting to use their power and influence to sway the upcoming mass demonstration.

Funny, Lerner never mentioned his son was a trained killer for Israel. Did my tax money pay for his free education and guns?

CHILD MURDERS AND RABBI LERNER
By Israel Shamir
November 21, 2002

Rabbi Michael Lerner published a letter (see below) containing an attempt to attach collective guilt for a single crime to the whole Palestinian people, and to shift the blame for the bloodshed to the victims. The Metzer murder, a revolting crime committed by a deranged individual, is (mis)presented by Michael Lerner as an act of Arafat’s (and Palestinian national) policy. Moreover, it is described as a “Palestinian act of terror”. It is an unacceptable lie. Would we refer to yesterday’s murder of two Palestinian toddlers in Khan Yunes as to “Jewish child-murders”, or even to Mark Rich’s deeds as to “Jewish fraud”, Rabbi Lerner would certainly call it “anti-Semitism”. That is why his letter should be condemned as an incitement to hate.

The deranged criminal from Metzer acted alone, and his action was met with horror by Palestinians and Jews alike. If and when he will be apprehended he will certainly be punished. On the other hand, the murderers of the Palestinian children in Khan Yunes remain at large; they are protected and their crimes condoned by the Jewish state. When a Palestinian girl child was murdered by a Jewish fanatic near Nablous, the witness for defence, Rabbi Yitzhak Ginzburg, claimed a Jew may kill a Goy with impunity. It appears his opinion won the day: practically none of the Jews who murdered three hundred innocent children in Palestine was brought to justice. Hilmi Shusha, a Palestinian child from Husan, was murdered by a settler Naum Korman in the eyesight of the entire village, but the Jewish judge Ruth Orr has sent Nahum Korman, the child murderer, for six months of public service in the old folks house.

Friends of Palestine won’t stoop as low as the late PM Golda Meir, who proclaimed “I can’t forgive the Palestinians that they force us to kill their children”. We won’t lie as the late PM David Ben Gurion who tried to attach blame for the Deir Yassin Massacre to ‘Arab irregulars’, and for Sharon’s massacre in Kibie to the relatives of ‘Arab terror victims’. We won’t try the line of Madeline Albright who thought the murder of Iraqi children was worth its while. Instead, we call to bring to the International Criminal Court every Jewish murderer of Palestinian children.

Rabbi Lerner should pay heed to a recent letter to Haaretz newspaper by Dr Miriam Reik, who wrote:
“Killing kids gets to be routine.
Israel is, in many ways, unique. It is the only country in the world in which a child, throwing a stone, is considered to have committed a capital crime, and a soldier can kill him with a bullet with impunity--no questions asked.
Haaretz reported the death in this fashion yesterday of Mohammed ali Zeiz, a 15 year old, without comment. It is the only country in the world in which the occupying army does not hold its fire when an innocent child is on the scene, much less rush to protect him.
Ibrahim al-Madani, 12 years old, died in this way yesterday, as reported by Haaretz, without comment. We all know of dozens of such incidents, which led Amnesty International to characterize the current conflict as one in which the lives of children are treated with "utter disregard," a charge met with cynical protestations of innocence by the IDF.
However, it is also a sad comment on the general deterioration of standards in Israel, that Haaretz can report such incidents, time and again, without editorial comment. Anything, I suppose, can become routine.
Miriam M. Reik, PhD”

Rabbi Lerner writes: “There is never any moral equivalence between one act of murder and another”. He is absolutely right. That is why, while mourning the dead of Khan Yunes and Metzer, we observe the vast difference between a one-man-crime and an act of the Jewish state-condoned and sponsored child murder.

Did it ever occur to you feebs that showing varied groups - that don't necessarily agree on all points - opposed to the war STRENGTHENS our position!? Back to propaganda class for you lot.

I think that Lerner is agent of the international Zionist consipracy. Lerner is a running dog of Sharon's imperialists. The Zionist setter colonialists are running dog lackeys of the US. Allahu Akbar! Send money to KPFK please. Gracias. El Lider

Didn't we have some times in
Havana. Eh amigo!
Want to shoot some Bush Admirer targets
like we did last week?