Michael Lerner

[Gatorade]

What is the deal with Michael Lerner and his magazine, Tikkun?

Is he naive? Or just a goody liberal type that believe love will cure all? I have seen him on Alan Keyes show and a couple others and thought he was just some kook, but he is getting a lot of press to hear what he has to say.

I was listening to the talk radio today and I guess he has an article in The Nation this month and since he calls himself a Rabbi people think he is speaking for Israel. Does anyone know his background?

Here are some of his solutions to the Middle East Conflict -

Creation of an international force to separate and protect Israelis and Palestinians from each other.

Resumption of an international negotiations process on the basis of the Saudi proposal.

Immediate resumption of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations on the basis of the negotiations at Taba in 2001. These negotiations must explicitly include a commitment from the Israelis to ending the Occupation, to sharing Jerusalem, and to creating an international consortium capable of providing reparations to the Palestinian people, as well as a commitment from the Palestinians to end all acts of terror against Israeli civilians.

True repentance by both sides for the cruelty and violence inflicted upon each other.

His ideas sound good on paper and for someone who doesn't know much of the history it all sounds good. Of course, the problem with it is that Israel would have to give into all demands and put itself at risk with no one on the Palestinian side giving any real indication that their mindset would be any different than it was when they were calling for the liberation of Palestine.

Here is how he thinks a person can help:

"Create a tent city in front of city hall or in front of a nearby federal building to demonstrate the conditions our U.S. arms are creating for the Palestinian people. Or rent a group of bulldozers and drive them slowly through the streets of your area with signs making the point that Israel has been bulldozing Palestinian homes."

http://www.beliefnet.com/author/author_42.html

[Gatorade]

You need a big shovel to read the article by Michale Lerner that is in the current issue of The Naiton.

Here are a couple exerts:

It is time for the United States to sponsor a multinational force to physically separate and protect Israel and Palestine from each other, and then to convene an international conference to impose a final settlement. This would include an end to the occupation, evacuation of the settlements, reparations for Palestinian refugees (and also for Jews who fled Arab lands), recognition of Israel by surrounding Arab states and cessation of all acts of terror and violence.

First off, there is no Palestine right now. There is Palestinian controlled areas within Israel. Who is going to be the international force? With Israel's past history, I don't think they will accept the UN and I don't want US soldiers there.

Reparations for Jews who fled Arab lands? If that ever happens, I would be fully in support of Palestinians receiving reparations. Who is going to enforce Jews getting reparations?

So basically, Israel makes itself really vulerable by giving up land and settlements. And they get in return, international forces to protect them who haven't been shown to be very good at that in the past.

Everyone goes home happy. The conflict is over.

At the start of the article, Lerner said, "Social justice Jews are not apologists for Palestinian violence." Then he comes out with this at the end of the article. The ultimate type of either/or fallacy. There is a host of Israel opinions that I have read. In the last week there were three different peace proposals.

Many students face an impossible choice between pro-Israel groups that support Sharon's current policies in lockstep or pro-Palestinian groups that claim the Palestinians are facing Nazi-like genocide at the hands of the Jewish people (an exaggeration that allows right-wing Jews to yell "anti-Semitism" because there is no attempt to systematically murder Palestinians, thereby letting Israel off the hook).

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020520&s=lerner

[Eliot]

In my opinion, the "deal" with Michael Lerner is that he is a self-hating Jew.

Tikkun publishes articles by fake Palestinian Edward Said and other conniving Arab advocates but eschews pieces by those who love and defend Israel.

Lerner buys every Arab lie and then some.

People like him collaborated with the Nazis during WWII. They were called Judenrat, a term that applies aptly these days to Lerner, Chomsky, Finkelstein and other Jews who fulminate tirelessly against their own people.

[elke]

I don't know about Rabbi Lerner being a self-hating Jew. To me, this is more a problem of him being naive. He fits the Liberal mold: all heart and not much head.

[Mediocrates]

I'll put on my 'values' hat and say that it has to do with moral equivalence, conflict resolution theory and fashionable postcolonial social studies.

The basic belief that everything is everything, that there are no good or bad values, there are no good or bad points of view and that words and judgments are meaningless. That every nation and every people has perfect and unlimited right to demand anything of the evil western european globalist american oppressors. That short term conflict avoidance is better than long term solutions to basic differences.

It breaks my heart to see Tikkun and think of tikkun olam (fix the world) and then see what they have wrought.

[cerulean]

How large a constituency does Michael Lerner speak for? Here is what may be his latest article:

http://www.utne.com/bSocietyPr.tmpl?command=search&db=dArticle.db&eqheadlinedata=Bush%20Offers%20Nothing%20Real%20to %20the%20Palestinians

Note that the Utne Reader is a liberal/hip/alternative form of Reader's Digest. It takes articles from other publications and reprints them. In this case, Utne has reprinted Lerner's article from Tikkun. Utne is probably is among the more liberal magazines available in the US. It cultivates a cozy, comfortable, anti-establishment feeling.

I skimmed the article and see a bunch of points that should be rebutted, but I hope someone else gets to it first.

[Gatorade]

the link didn't work but I found the article.

Try this link Bush Offers Nothing Real to the Palestinians by Michael Lerner (http://www.utne.com)

Typical stuff from Lerner. Israel should give up the West Bank and that will magically end terrorism because average Palestinians will then fight against the terrorists. He fails to realize the entire Oslo Accords were set up as a test for this and when Israel gave the Palestinians guns to police against the terrorists, the PA used the guns against Israel.

I have to laugh when guys like him blame Bush for Palestinians behavior and say the demands in Bush's speech are unrealistic.

I don't have time to comment further so I will end this by quoting Michael B. Oren:

"The leader of the most powerful nation says all you have to do is elect an accountable government and stop blowing up people, and we will create a state, protect you, give you a place among nations."

Somehow this isn't enough for someone like Lerner.

[ibrodsky]

There is an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal by none other than Michael Lerner. And why did the editor of Tikkun write an essay for the voice of capitalism and conservatism?

Probably because none of his sister publications want to hear his complaint, which is that he was denied the right to speak at an upcoming rally against the war on Iraq because the organizers decided to exclude Jewish speakers.

It's time for Jews to get debriefed: slavish devotion to the Democratic Party and assorted leftist causes will make you increasingly uncomfortable.

While many Jews recoil at the thought of associating with "conservative Republicans" (an unthinkable act of heresy to many of my own relatives), the fact is that it's these conservative Republicans who are Israel's staunchest friends in the US government.

Just as it was southern Democrats who most opposed the Civil Rights Act, it is Democrats who are most concerned about Israel's "illegal occupation" and "apartheid-like" policies - even to the point of making common cause with antisemites. Their recommendation: Israel has to withdraw, share Jerusalem, and throw herself on the mercy of Islamist mass murderers.

In contrast, those nasty Republicans believe that the Palestinians should not be rewarded for terrorism. Bill Clinton met with Yaser Arafat time and time again. George W. Bush has not met with the Father of Modern Terrorism once since becoming President.

[Communication]

Here's the article. I posted it on another website and they thrashed Michael Lerner for placing his own religion before the interests of justice and "Lerner cannot abide anyone dissing his religion. It makes them 'anti-semites', whatever that means.
No different from the Pope not expelling sexual predators." Welcome aboard Michael!

The Antiwar Anti-Semites: Peace protest organizers tolerate no dissent.
BY MICHAEL LERNER
Wall Street Journal
Wednesday, February 12, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

SAN FRANCISCO--Imagine my surprise when I found out that I am banned from
speaking at a peace rally here this Sunday. As editor of Tikkun, the
largest-circulation liberal Jewish magazine in the world, I have been an
outspoken critic of the proposed war in Iraq. I have also unequivocally
condemned Saddam Hussein's brutality and called for the world community to
bring him to justice for crimes against humanity. But we at Tikkun do not
believe that this war--in which thousands of Iraqi civilians are likely to
die--will bring democracy to the Middle East. Instead, it is bound to
increase the threat of terrorism to American citizens and provoke more
violence. It will also fuel American fantasies of world economic and
political domination.

So why was I being blackballed over the peace rally?

My sin was publicly criticizing the way that A.N.S.W.E.R., one of the four
groups sponsoring the San Francisco demonstration, has used the antiwar
demonstrations to put forward anti-Israel propaganda. An A.N.S.W.E.R.
spokesperson, speaking on the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC, said that they
didn't want a "pro-Israel" speaker at their rally.

The other groups have said that while they disagree with A.N.S.W.E.R., they
will honor an agreement giving each group an effective veto on speakers. Yet
it is inconceivable that these antiwar coalitions would let A.N.S.W.E.R. ban
a speaker if he accused that group of racism, sexism or homophobia. Why
should anti-Semitism be treated differently, as the acceptable -ism?

It is outrageous that those of us who wish to protest against what we see as
a fundamentally unjust war must be subjected to a barrage of slogans and
speeches that are one-sidedly hostile to Israel. That is just as outrageous
as some in the Jewish community claiming that our opposition to war makes us
champions of Palestinian groups which use terror and violence against
Israeli civilians.

There is a huge difference between criticism of Ariel Sharon's repressive
treatment of the Palestinian people and a refusal to accept the fundamental
legitimacy of Israel's existence. For years, those of us who want democratic
rights for Palestinians have been dubbed "self-hating Jews" by right-wingers
in the Jewish world. Now, some on the left insist that if we support human
rights we must also uncritically support the violence of some Palestinian
"freedom fighters" who make no secret of their desire to overthrow the
Zionist enterprise.

That's why we recently created a new national organization supporting a
"progressive middle path" that is both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian. We
call for an end to the occupation, the creation of a Palestinian state and
reparations for Palestinian refugees. But we also call for reparations for
Jews who fled Arab states, and for Israel's admission into NATO--or some
other equally powerful military alliance--to give the Jewish state genuine
security.

The most painful thing has been watching other antiwar groups make
unprincipled compromises with A.N.S.W.E.R. As a result, there is support on
the left for self-determination for every group in the world except the
Jewish people. Fellow progressive Jews, some anxious to speak at these
rallies, have urged me to keep quiet about anti-Semitism on the left. After
all, they say, stopping the war against Iraq is so much more important.

Why should we have to choose? Tikkun will be bringing thousands of our
supporters to the demonstration Sunday. But just as we fought against the
sexism and homophobia that once infected the left, we will challenge
anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing on the left, even as we say "no" to a war
with Iraq.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Rabbi Lerner, editor of Tikkun magazine and www.tikkun.org, is the author of
"Healing Israel/Palestine," to be published in July by North Atlantic Books.
He is rabbi of the Beyt Tikkun synagogue in San Francisco.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=43222#post43222



They truly deserve one another. I say let them scream and foam at one another about who is the bigger terrorist with all the takeos of the world leading the charge. Screw them all unto death.

[JustPat]

Lerner is an accomplished philospoher and apologist ... worthless in real life situations. An ardent "liberal," he speaks out of both sides of his mouth. On one hand decrying anti-semitism and on the other espousing and proliferating anti-Israel rhetoric. Why do people give these guys the time of day?