The anti-war movement is exponentially expanding throughout the country as President Bush and his administration bungles encounter after encounter with the global community. In the past month, anti-war rallies have sprung up all over America. Here in Hanover, a group of student and community protestors spent Friday holding placards on Main St. President Bush's approval rating dropped below 50 percent for the first time in his presidency this week. To no small extent, Americans are reacting to the threat of war with Iraq.
On Feb. 16, Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER) sponsored an anti-war rally in San Francisco. Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of the liberal Jewish magazine Tikkun, asked to speak at the rally, but ANSWER refused his request. After his interactions with ANSWER, Lerner went public. He said that he had been banned from speaking not because he didn't share ANSWER's concerns regarding war with Iraq, but because ANSWER said that it didn't approve of Lerner's approach to issues regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
This came as a surprise for Lerner because he has often been criticized for being too critical of Israel. He has signed petitions and spoken out against Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Israel's policies regarding the Palestinians. But according to Lerner, ANSWER thought that Lerner was too pro-Israel to speak at a rally protesting war in Iraq. (Since Lerner's rejection from the rally was publicized, ANSWER has issued a statement claiming to have other reasons for banning Lerner. A group of 150 intellectuals has responded to ANSWER's statement with incredulity.)
The debacle at the San Francisco rally illustrates a disturbing problem in the anti-war movement. Too often, protest of war in Iraq is connected to anti-Israel sentiments.
This fall, a group of Dartmouth students traveled to Washington, D.C. for an anti-war rally. After they got back, I asked a friend who had attended the rally how she had been affected by it. "The energy was incredible," she said. "There were so many people there. It was America in action. But alongside the war protestors were all these people saying horrible things about Israel. I felt that just by standing in the same rally as those protestors, I was somehow connecting myself to their statements."
The connection of anti-Israel and anti-war protest is not only an American phenomenon. Recent anti-war protests in Europe and beyond have also been characterized by protestors speaking out against Israel. Whatever you think about suicide terrorism in Israel and the possibility of land-for-peace initiatives should not imply anything about your opinions of war with Iraq. When the anti-war movement conflates opposition to an American invasion with anti-Israel sentiments, it creates a problem for itself. The movement makes a connection that is simply not necessary.
The creation of a connection between anti-Israel and anti-war rhetoric serves to misinform and alienate conscientious and concerned Americans. People who might otherwise speak out against war feel rejected by the anti-war movement. In connecting anti-Israel and anti-war action and slogans, the anti-war movement ultimately damns itself as it loses potential supporters. Cutting the anti-Israel messages would not alter the movement's goals or ability to make a difference (that is, of course, if its motives are purely to counter an invasion of Iraq). There is no excuse for including anti-Israel statements in the anti-war movement.
If anti-war protests and interest groups can differentiate their interests, they will better represent American opposition. Such action will allow the movement to expand and address the terrifying issue of pressing military action in Iraq.