Israel seeks PR help for image makeover

[Scurrilous]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/573395.html

<snip>

"Israeli missions abroad and the Foreign Ministry are hoping to "rebrand" Israel by focusing less on the regional conflict and more on Israel's achievements in science, culture and other areas.

In cooperation with the Advertisers Association, the foreign and finance ministries and the Prime Minister's Office have started drafting PR firms, associations and businesspeople in efforts to find a new image for Israel in keeping with commercial PR and marketing models.

The move was decided on following an analysis of findings from a study carried out by the Wunderman marketing research institute, a division of the well-known American firm Young and Rubicam. The company specializes in studying brandings, among them of countries wishing to improve their image.

The study, which was presented at a PR seminar at Bar-Ilan University, shows that for most Americans, the Arab-Israeli conflict is losing relevance. They are experiencing information overload on the subject and a concomitant loss of sympathy for Israel."

[orpupilofnature57]

1. Israel's ,woes have been at the for front since,B.C what? Oh Israel!

Where has their genius been during our Image problems.Shrubs agenda has alienated us in Israel too .

[simcha_6]

26. What are you talking about?

They've been in the forefront maybe once each decade until the 80's.

[not systems]

2. So information == loss of sympathy for Israel...

interesting quote.

[Colorado Blue]

3. Information OVERLOAD - not the same thing. Also, there's

a deliberate conflation in the M.E. media plus a sort of "guilt by association" confusion in the American media, between the war in Iraq and the Intifada. Most people don't read much, they're not well-informed, they see "shock and awe" on the tube, complete with fighter planes, bombers, tanks, glorious pipeline explosions, a car bombing in Iraq, more dead Iraqis and American soldiers. Then they or hear about the shooting of a Palestinian terrorist or - much worse - the shooting of kids who were part of a rock-throwing mob - followed by a mournful Palestinian funeral, and they make the association: Israel caused this war. Or, Israel WANTS this war, or plotted it.

Bush has really screwed us - I mean Jewish people in general - with this war in Iraq. I was afraid of that right from Day 1: that somehow the War on Terror was going to rebound right in the Jewish and/or Israeli kisser.

It is so STUPID that people consistently say, oh, the War in Iraq is Israel's idea, chaos and war in the M.E. benefit ISRAEL, they planned it, they run Washington, so forth. In fact, this war has been devastating to Israel AND TO JEWS WORLDWIDE. Since 9/11, more Israelis have gotten killed than in many previous years combined (and of course the corrolary - more Palestinians as well, in retaliation and terror-prevention.)

It is a horrible confluence of events: Intifada in Israel/Palestine, War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq. They ARE linked - if you look far enough back into history, into the origins of pan-Arab nationalism and the Ba'ath party, resentment of modern, industrialized powers and the lethal effects of oil politics - but the one didn't CAUSE the other.

Yet, I'm sure that the subliminal message, through TV images primarily, is to redouble the effect of both and layer the imagery so that they become indistinguishable.

Worldwide, antisemitic attacks - from the verbal to the physical - have soared. It's almost getting scary to go public with being Jewish and/or pro-Israeli IN THE USA. I worry about exposing my true name to people, just in conjunction with my writing here.

Naturally, assisting with this, has been the Arab press (like al Jazeera and its more radical brethren) and the far right wing press in the west, PLUS the far LEFT wing - all of which consistently blame Israel and/or Jewish conspiracies for all the woes of the world. Even the TSUNAMI was blamed on Israel. And in the M.E., American interests have become indistinguishable from Israeli interests - even though they are NOT the same at all. So hatred for the violence of America has rebounded on ISRAEL, and on Jews in general.

As far as the American and European scene is concerned - it's interesting, isn't it - how if you listen to the messages of the extreme left and the extreme right - they INTERSECT?

So I don't blame the Israelis for seeing a PR firm. Jews At Large need one too, the ugly old conspiracy theories are alive and well and THRIVING on the 'web. Revisionist historians and pseudo-journalists are making a living, distorting both past and present.

The inferences and hatred are uglier than I've seen them in my lifetime, and more widespread. We can't even have a discussion about the Holocaust here on DU, without being bombed with hateful and of course, "deleted" messages. The meaning of the word "Zionism" has come to mean something ugly, conspiratorial, hateful - just as it was in the "Protocols" of Czarist Russia.

Information overload, indeed.

[not systems]

5. How large were the demonstrations against the Iraq war in Israel?

I remember seeing photos of huge demonstrations all around
the world.

I don't remember seeing demonstrations against the war in Israel,
perhaps you can post a link to images of Israelis who were against
the war on Iraq.

I really doubt that the removal of the only other regional military
power in the ME has been devastating to Israel. In fact judging from
Israel's strong right wing supporters here like Kristal and Horowitz
I would guess that the majority represented by the majority Sharon government
loved the war and are very happy that it happened and wanted it to
before it did.

Maybe you know of polls that say otherwise.

I'm not talking about American Jews only Israel's citizens.

I'm sure you can point to some minority fringe groups that opposed
the war but if you are honest, you will see they are just that a minority.

[pelsar]

6. israelis against the war in iraq...

there were a few demonstrations, but very few in number and size. For the most part us israelis were glad to see sadam go...a man who paid the families of suicide bombers, an arab dictatorship who tossed missles at Tel Aviv.....he was no friend of ours...

[Djinn]

14. and if 100,000 Iraqi's die in the process

hey that's an acceptable price to pay, do you really think that if payments (from all sources) to bombers families stopped that the bombings would?? Do you think people do it to earn some spending money for their families????

Unfortunately for Israel people are getting better at spotting PR bullshit (having worked in the industry for too long I think I'm well qualified to call the bulk of it's work utter and unmitigated bullshit)

The occupation will still be viewed as illegal by most of the world regardless of how many achievements Israel can claim in arts/science/sport etc

[pelsar]

16. what are you writing about?

just because israel did not find saddam a good neighbor, one that tosses missles at Tel Aviv, that automatically makes israel guilty of Bushes war in iraq?

[Djinn]

24. try reading it slowly it might help

[simcha_6]

28. Wrong

Maybe you don't mean it, but the idea that Israel caused the war is being discussed in this thread (along with other stuff) and your comments are confused with that topic.

[Colorado Blue]

8. I don't think the opinion of Israelis about the war is the issue.

The issue is the idea that Jews and/or Israelis CAUSED the war. That's becoming a very boring and offensive theme.

It's creating big problems, as I described in my above post. I can provide links if you need more information.

By the way, if you lived in the Middle East, you might also have a different opinion about the war. We're relatively safe here. Israel is not in that position, nor were Saddam's neighbors, nor were the Kurds who were overjoyed to see him gone, nor were the Shi'a in the South.

There are many ways to look at this situation, at the war, per se.

As for the increasing demonization of Jews and of Israel, I think that's obvious. As I said, if you want some links that explain this, I'll be happy to provide them.

[Coastie for Truth]

9. You could say the same thing about the USA

1. Bush won, not Kerry. And neither Dean nor Kucinich was nominated. What does that say about US political support for the war.

2. According to the SF Chron, attendance at the Peace Rally in San Francisco was under 0.7% of the population of the SF Bay Metro Area.

I guess you could say that a majority of Americans support the war, and an overwhelming majority of people in the San Francisco Bay Area didn't care enough to even show up.

My point is that using number of attendees at rallies is irrelevant, and if it is even remotely relevant, the "ANSWER Coalition" (organizer of the San Francisco Rally) clearly discourage Jewish-American attendance.

Your point?

[not systems]

11. My point was...

CB said "In fact, this war has been devastating to Israel AND TO JEWS WORLDWIDE."

I was pointing out that it was not unwanted by Israel or many of Israel's
hard-line and not quite so hard-line supporters here.

So the USA and Israel are war loving societies that is
sad but not exactly late breaking news.

The fact is the pro-war Israeli lobby is one of many interest
groups that caused this war, not the only one or the primary
one, but to act like Israel's intrests played no roll in building
the political and media coalition that made the war happen is
just not honest.

So what? You tell me. I don't know.

[Coastie for Truth]

12. Read up on peak oil, look at GM's and Ford's Junk Bond ratings--

Read Engdahl, Goodstein, and Deffeyes (Check out the "Peak Oil Forum for the cites) - can you intellectually honestly say that the Petroleum Industry, the Domestic Auto Industry, the "United Auto Workers," the "Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers," the auto dealers, and domestic SUV owners were not beating the drums for this war.

I follow the (alternative, renewable, green) energy industry. This war is so blatantly "Blood for Oil" that it sickens me. This "Blood for Oil" war has not bought the Oil-Auto lobby the breathing space it hoped for.

[not systems]

13. I agree that oil was...

the primary reason.

Israel was a secondary and lesser reason but important
for numerous very effective public intellectuals who promoted
the war. Kristal, Pearl and Horowitz come to mind as
very pro-war and probably more interested in Israel than oil.

I think now that as the primary basis for the war fails its
likely that people will look for scapegoats but the fact
is that a roll in this war was played by Israel's right-wing
backers, who appear to be pushing for war with Syria and Iran.

As far as I know Syria has no oil.

[Colorado Blue]

22. The word "scapegoating" is exactly what I'm trying to say

here and it is no small thing. We are the TRADITIONAL scapegoat and it's a very dangerous position to be in.

Beyond that, the war in Iraq was, besides oil, besides the proximity to some terrorists, about big business. They were letting contracts for the reconstruction before the first bombs were loaded on the planes. This has been in the planning probably since the FIRST Gulf War.

Haliburton, for one, has made big bucks in the M.E., including in Iran, where it isn't supposed to be due to the sanctions.

Anybody who thinks a few Jewish people control those guys is dreaming. And Israel can lobby all it wants but US strategy, alliances and business policies are NOT controlled by a country of 6 million people, with no resources, that is smaller than Massachusetts. If interests coincide, fine. Otherwise, forgetaboutit. If you'll recall, the Israelis had to sit there while Saddam rained Scud missiles on them. It was frightening, people didn't know if he would use bio or chemical weapons, and they couldn't retaliate due to the fragile nature of the coalition.

In any case, contrary to popular opinion, Israel surely didn't cause this war. And nobody would have listened to Wolfie or The Prince Of Darkness if their ideas didn't suit the Big Boys well.

Hence the term, SCAPEGOAT. The big boys need a front man, they got one. And, if things go wrong, guess who takes the hit.

People never ever see, they do not know the names, of the people who are really running things: heavy industrialists, bankers, speculators, people who manage the global economy. Even Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are just the smiling faces of the big machine. And, it's a multinational - interests are global now, they aren't limited to American flag companies or certainly not, those of the American people.

As for Syria and Iran, if the War on Terror really WAS about terror, they would have been the logical targets, rather than Iraq, which was scary enough to people in the region, but which didn't seem to harbor terrorists. Saudi Arabia, too, would have been a prime candidate but I guess they're buddies with Our Leaders, and too important to our oil situation. So they're hands off, even though they're guilty of fomenting much aggravation.

Personally, I don't see how attacking Iran can lead to anything but catastrophe. We can't even deal effectively with Iraq and it is much smaller. Besides, I think it is better to let the people themselves moderate their leadership. I think, given time, they will. I think they should be encouraged, not made into pariahs. The mullahs do NOT represent all the people of Iran. It's a very diverse and sophisticated country and I can't believe they wouldn't prefer representative government.

In Syria, Bashir Assad doesn't seem to be in control of the radical groups who reside there. That in itself makes Syria unpredictable and possibly dangerous and destabilizing, to Lebanon as well as Israel and other neighbors.

I saw one of Assad's representatives on the tube and he said, the terrorists are the enemies of the Syrians also, deadly enemies. I know they scare the Israelis, and with reason. I'm sure the Jordanians worry also. Probably there is infiltration across the Syrian border into Iraq, not helping matters.

It is a shame, there is so much divisiveness where cooperation and tolerance could work wonders.

But maybe that in itself, is NOT what the Great Powers want.

[Coastie for Truth]

25. Huh?

Kristol is a publicist. Perle is a Washington influence peddler. Horowitz is a disgruntled former leftie who became a Rush Blimpaugh neo-con. These guys are no more "public intellectuals" then Bob Novak or Anne Coulter or Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly.

I am in the ENERGY INDUSTRY => not the "real" Texas oil industry - but photovoltaics, fuel cells, wind turbines, distributed generation, co-generation, and alternative generation systems integration.

Anybody who really believes that OIL was not the PRIMARY REASON for the war in Iraq -- and believes the Bush Bull Shit (fed by Buchanan and Novak and Coulter) about "defending Israel" -- a very vital read is Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America."

As much as Israel's more extreme backer may have played a role - try Junk Bond King William Ford (CEO of Junk Bond Rated Ford Motor Co), Junk Bond King Rick Wagoner (CEO of Junk Bond General Motors), and the club of mega-millionaire chemical engineering PhD's, Dr Lee Raymond (CEO of ExxonMobil), Dr. Dave O'Reilly (CEO of TexacoChevron), and Dr Ray Irani (CEO of Oxy) - and also Sir Phillip Wall (disgraced former CEO of Shell).

For some back up about the "strategic necessity" you might try--

Geology and Economics

---Matthew Simmons, "Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy"

---James Howard Kunstler, "The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of the Oil Age, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-first Century" (Overly pessimistic)

---Anthony Evans, "An Introduction to Economic Geology and Its Environmental Impact" (A good general intro to the underlying geology)

---Ken Deffeyes, "Beyond Oil : The View from Hubbert's Peak"

---Ken Deffeyes, "Hubbert's Peak : The Impending World Oil Shortage"

---Goodstein, "Out of Gas: The End of the Age Of Oil"

---Yergin, "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power"




And the "Poli Sci" and "Politics"

---Unger, "House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties"

---Ehrenfeld, "Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed--and How to Stop It, Revised Edition"

---Engdahl, "Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order"

---Shlaim, "The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World"

---Keay, "The Seeds of Conflict in the Middle East"

Unlike many appenders, I do not give links to obscure, extremist (left or right, Palestinian or Likud) web sites. I try to provide references to the underlying science, and economics, and non-polemic history. I guess that's a result of my misspent youth in engineering schools and my misspent life in engineering.

[simcha_6]

31. Those guys are neocons

The point of the Iraq war for neocons was to get bases in Iraq to secure future economic supremacy.

[simcha_6]

29. Bush says a weak dollar is good for the US, and defecit spending is good

But that's not good for the U.S. Sometimes idealogical politicians don't forsee the consequences of occurences.

[simcha_6]

27. I'm sure they had other things on their minds

Such as not providing a nice target for terrorists.

More importantly, I think it's erroneous to equate a lack of protest in Israel with the idea that Israel caused the Iraq war.

[not systems]

40. Since I never...

have equated lack of "protest in Israel with the idea that Israel caused the Iraq war"

I guess you can save yourself the effort of saying so.

I do think that many people have a holy war mentality toward
Islam and that centers on supporting Israel by destroying
all it's enemy's. Some of the people are Jews and some are
Christians and some of these people have influence on US
policy directly or indirectly and push us toward the aim
of war.

Not cause it but wish for it, agitate for it and propagandized for war.

[Coastie for Truth]

4. Trying to Make Haifa the next Bangalore

Excerpt 1--

"In cooperation with the Advertisers Association, the foreign and finance ministries and the Prime Minister's Office have started drafting PR firms, associations and businesspeople in efforts to find a new image for Israel in keeping with commercial PR and marketing models."

Excerpt 2--

"Instead, they will be focusing on Israel's contributions in technology, medicine, culture and other fields. The Foreign Ministry will be sending scientists, businesspeople and artists to the U.S. and other countries to further the new approach."

Like the San Francisco Bay Area - Israel is blessed with an over-abundance of "over qualified and under employed" engineers and scientists. And some of the multi-national high tech investment they were courting (Intel's new facility went to China, Sun's new labs went to Prague Czech Republic and St. Petersburg Russia, California passed the Stem Cell Research Prop 71) went elsewhere or never materialized.

Marketing for investment - same thing Malaysia has been doing. Same thing Indonesia has been doing -- Pakistan has been doing it with some interesting work on . Every country has an "Industrial Development Authority" looking for business development.

And, I don't see any objections to other countries.

[geek tragedy]

7. How about getting the hell out of the West Bank? You can't buy

publicity like that.

[simcha_6]

30. You think that'll end the conflict?

There'll still be terrorism, Israel will still have the Golan and Sheba farms, and Palestine is likely to go through a couple of years of chaos, whihc won't help Israel any. Not allowing right of return won't help, either.

Pulling out of the WB isn't a quick fix. Look what happened when they pulled out of Lebanon.

[IndianaGreen]

10. Perhaps Israel's government should hire someone like Karl Rove

He can sell Satan to anyone as the latest incarnation of the Christ.

Change policies and the PR will take care of itself.

[Colorado Blue]

15. I think the planned withdrawal from Gaza is a major change

in policy, and one which will probably backfire. I certainly hope not, I hope a step by Israel will result in a similar step by the Palestinians, but what with all these rocket attacks, etc., I'm pessimistic.

Meanwhile, just in practical terms, it doesn't make sense, militarily, to unilaterally withdraw without any solid indication that Abu Mazzen has controlled the militants. It makes no sense without peace agreements.

I wish that a simple withdrawal would result in peace. I doubt that it will result in anything but making the people of Israel - and by extension, the innocent Palestinian people - more vulnerable.

As a PR gambit, that's an extremely risky proposition.

Please note: this does not mean the occupation is "good" or "proper" or whatever terms would make it politically palatable. And please, do not anybody call me a right-winger or a likudnik. I'm just stating a point of view here, OK?

Militarily the occupation was necessary at the time and militarily I am not sure it still isn't necessary. Who is going to catch the bombers enroute to Israel? Who is going to interdict the arms smuggling? Do you think that will stop like magic? Or that the extremists are going to give up wanting to destroy Israel? That is a huge problem, one that is making life miserable for Israelis and for Palestinians.

I hate the civil rights violations, that people can't move freely, that there isn't free movement and all the benefits of trade between neighbors. But as long as people are determined to make war, innocents suffer.

Will withdrawal change the basic hatred? It has been going on since the '20's. The same ugly voices of that created the riots and the killings and the blood libels, are louder than ever. The moderates speak in hushed tones. Hell - with these murders of "collaborators" it is probably dangerous to be a moderate, to want to make peace.

The Palestine Covenant, as far as I know, has never been repealed. That's the one where the destruction of Israel is explicit. Hamas has just won 30% of the votes in the recent election. To the best of my knowledge, after considerable research, it seems that vile antisemitic slanders are being taught in schools and preached in sermons. This isn't new! And I doubt withdrawal would change it. Do you?

Withdrawal might well be good PR. At what price in essential security? At what price in lives?

[pelsar]

17. PR value

no there is no PR value in leaving Gaza, dont kid yourself.....as far as what the palestenians do with gaza, well I cant say I'm too optimistic, nor are some palesteniains...

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/08/everybody_loses_in_sharons_gaza_plan/

during a break in the shift, I ask some of workers if they like their jobs. They shrug. But when I ask what they think of the plan for Israeli withdrawal, they grow animated. If the Israelis go, they tell me through an interpreter, they'll lose their jobs. If the plant shuts down, they'll be out of work, and if the Palestinian Authority takes it over, they'll still be out of work -- their jobs will go to workers with better connections to the PA's ruling thugs.

[Colorado Blue]

18. Thanks, Pelsar. I wasn't aware of this. More from the article:

This region, which had been barren dunes, is apparently now an agricultural powerhouse that employs many Arab workers - who are not happy about the prospect of losing their jobs.

''If that's how you feel," I ask, ''why don't you oppose the disengagement publicly? Why don't you tell the PA that you want your Jewish neighbors to stay?"

When my question is translated, the men look at me as if I'm crazy.

''It's forbidden!" replies Randoor, the only one of the workers who would give even a first name. ''We're not allowed to say that!"

I press him: Why not? What would be so bad about saying that Jews and Arabs should be able to live together? But Randoor shakes his head and crosses his wrists, as if being handcuffed. ''They might put us in jail," he says. ''They might call us 'collaborators.' " In the jungle that is Palestinian society, being called a ''collaborator" can be a death sentence. Indeed, the PA's newly elevated security chief -- a cold-blooded killer named Rashid Abu Shabak -- is known in Gaza as the ''collaborator hunter."

As we were saying - maybe being a peaceful moderate is outright dangerous. And what is good about depriving people of their jobs?

But to the outside world - it will look as though the Evil Occupier is doing the right thing?

[simcha_6]

32. Some say the author is biased

Take it with a grain of salt, though it sounds believable to me.

[Coastie for Truth]

19. No matter how far left and how pacifist and how vegan we are

... we will never win the PR flame war.

Even on DU, even in Berkeley and San Francisco .. Beyt Tikkun and Michael Lerner are not accepted as "legitimate" by such groups as International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) -- , . , , , .

Next step to even enter the PR Flame Wars? We could try the ?

And of course, going back to the pre-statehood "Partition Plan Lines"
<>
- but that wouldn't be enough either.

I know - we could jump into the sea and swim to and completely leave the ME - even taking the Sephardi and Mizrachi.

And for some (most?) that probably wouldn't be adequate.

Becoming extreme leftist, go-limp pacifist, vegetarian, lefties, completely leaving the ME, and "going back to Russia" still would not be enough for some.

So why try. The critics have no credibility.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again - and expecting a better result.

[Colorado Blue]

20. We could swim to Birodiszhan?

Nu, at least it has oil:) But then they'd be mad at us in Birodiszhan. If they aren't already:(

I fear you're right, it's not like we had good PR before.

[drdon326]

21. There's always Antarctica.

Someone played a cruel joke on Israel for not putting oil there.

[pelsar]

23. ANSWER.......

an israeli friend of mine, last year, requested to speak at an A.N.S.W.E.R. rally (hes a "bit to the left")...he was refused because hes an israeli.....needless to say I've been noticing a bit of change in his views after that

[idontwantaname]

33. ANSWER is a "funny" organization...

i dont know which location he contacted... however his denied request to speak because he is israeli is probably only part of the story...

chances are the core group didnt feel comfortable with him... because of his history or views... or maybe they already had a speaker for that spot.

if he is in the states send me his info if he is interested... i am not with ANSWER but im interested in meeting new people.

[pelsar]

34. not this time....

no, they were very very very clear about it....my friend was quite surprised to say the least.
I was less so

it happens many on the left can be just as biased as anybody else...(its just not supposed to happen...just as rabbis and priets and imans are supposed to be "more "moral" than us mere mortals)

[idontwantaname]

35. biased and stubborn...

unfortunately its too common for groups and/or individuals on the left to set uncrossable borders... many folks here refuse to work together or associate on projects because of their differing nitpicky opinions... ridiculously frustrating.

[Coastie for Truth]

36. After the San Francisco Rally where Michael Lerner was

insulted and not permitted to speak, and Jewish grouops were BOYCOTTED --

I have confined my Peace Rally attendance to those rallies where the participants are shade to the right of ANSWER, where the participants are older and more mature and less emotional, where ANSWER is not part of the organization, and where I can sit and chat and reminisce in a Starbucks after the rally (like Palo Alto instead of San Francisco or Berkeley).

[idontwantaname]

37. speaking of PR...

STATEMENT FROM FEBRUARY 16 ANTI-WAR COALITIONS REGARDING RABBI MICHAEL
LERNER

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 UPJ that
since he had publicly attacked A.N.S.W.E.R. in both the New York Times
and Tikkun community email newsletters, his inclusion in the program
would violate the agreement among the Feb. 16 organizing groups. At
that time, Tikkun representatives expressed that it would not be a
problem if Michael Lerner was not proposed as a speaker.

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, which
will be expressed on Feb. 16. 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're heartened by the broad range of participation that is
developing for Feb. 16, including within the Jewish community, and
invite one and all to join with us in our efforts to stop the war on
Iraq.

Issued by: Bay Area United Against War, International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act
Now to Stop War & End Racism) Coalition, Not In Our Name Project,
United for Peace and Justice

posted 2/12/2003

[Coastie for Truth]

38. Tikkun is the farthest left "Two State Solution" voice

and Lerner has been at odds with ANSWER (which advocates a "One State Solution") over statements made by ANSWER for a long time before UPJ began organizing this Rally. (And this excluding other leftie groups sounds like a Rove managed Presidential appearance)

The operative paragraph of the statement is:

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 UPJ that since he had publicly attacked A.N.S.W.E.R. in both the New York Times and Tikkun community email newsletters, his inclusion in the program would violate the agreement among the Feb. 16 organizing groups. At that time, Tikkun representatives expressed that it would not be a problem if Michael Lerner was not proposed as a speaker.

1) The policy annunciated in the sentence "One of the first agreements that was made between members of the Tikkun Community, who have actively participated in the organizing meetings for Feb. 16, was that none of the coalitions would propose rally speakers who had publicly attacked or worked to discredit one of the coalition groups." would have also precluded ANSWER from participated.

2) This is especially true give that "...members of the Tikkun Community, who have actively participated in the organizing meetings for Feb. 16,..." making Tikkun one of "... the groups organizing the Feb. 16 anti-war protest..." and therefore ANSWER also "...had publicly attacked or worked to discredit one of the coalition groups..."

3) Therefore, since ANSWER had publicly attacked Tikkun and Lerner, ANSWER's inclusion in the program would also violate the agreement among the Feb. 16 organizing groups.

4) "At that time, Tikkun representatives expressed that it would not be a problem if Michael Lerner was not proposed as a speaker." is just UPJ and ANSWER's interpretation of the facts.

I operate on the paranoid assumption that it is up to the target/recipient of an ambiguous statement to judge if the statement is bigoted or biased or racist.

I also follow Matlin and Magida's "How to Be a Perfect Stranger: The Essential Religious Etiquette Handbook"

I enjoyed the counterpart rally on Sunday in Palo Alto, with more centrist adults, and had a leisurely Mocha at the Starbucks with other golden agers - while we reminisced about the rallies of the 1960's.

I still tithe to the DCCC and the DNC - and still go to Democratic fund raisers - and still go to mature, adult, all-encompassing, all-inclusive peace rallies.

[idontwantaname]

39. need to check my sources....

the ANSWER org. is not for everyone... but to be an advocate for one state solution is not anti-semitism...

BTW- ...



--------------------

re:#3 - the key word is "rally speakers"...

"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."

--------------------

re:#4 - Feb 13: The Jewish Voice for Peace newsletter responds to the situation.

It reads, in part:

"A frenzy has been whipped up around the issue of whether or not Rabbi Michael Lerner will speak at the upcoming demonstration in San Francisco, taking place on Sunday, February 16. The accusation that the anti-war movement does not incorporate Jewish voices is a serious one, one that deserves a serious response.

"At A Jewish Voice for Peace, we have found close and staunch allies in the anti-war coalition. We have found that our opinion is sought time and time again and that our stance in support for a truly just peace between Israelis and Palestinians and respect for Israeli human rights as well as Palestinians' has been respected and represented in the speakers that have been chosen. At the upcoming demonstration, Mitchell Plitnick, Director of Administration and Communication for JVP, will speak, along with Israeli refusenik Ofer Shorr, and Kate Raphael from San Francisco Women in Black, Rabbi Steven Pierce, Rabbi Pam Frydman-Baugh, and Rabbi David Cooper. This represents a broad spectrum of Jewish anti-war views.

"Rabbi Lerner's views are welcomed in the coalition. He is an important spokesperson for the movement for peace and justice in Israel and Palestine. It was because he criticized one of the coalition partners, ANSWER, in the New York Times and over TikkunMail, that the coalition, including the Tikkun representative present at the meeting, decided that we were capable of finding another speaker with views similar to his who did not openly attack a coalition partner. Therefore the question of Rabbi Lerner speaking was never even brought before the coalition's program committee. The proviso that anyone who had taken such action would not be welcomed to speak can be debated, but it was agreed to well in advance by all members of this coalition.

http://sf.indymedia.org/print.php?id=1573908