I'm On the Verge of Saying Screw the Anti-War Rally

Watching clips of the Answer Anti-War Rally, all I see are things that I want nothing to do with.  I am a staunch supporter of Israel, and its fundamental right to exist.  I bet you that the majority of Americans who are against the war are too.  Yet I watch this rally and see people basically supporting the Hamas, etc., and the suicide killings of innocent Israelis in cafes, on buses, etc.  

If you want to break down the coalition of people against the war, turning this into a hate the Jews/Israel party is an easy way to do it.  So, I suggest this: back the f--k off other issues, and concentrate on the one issue that unites us, and unites this community with the majority of the American people: The Iraq War was A Mistake, and the US should pull out as fast as possible.  As a subsidiary to this: George W. Bush is responsible for the biggest foreign policy blunder (i.e. Iraq) since at least Vietnam, and should be held accountable.  Going beyond this to other pet issues of the so-called far-left is going to break this coalition down and kill the common cause.

I understand that some may disagree with me on this Israel/Palestine issue.  There are fora to discuss this issue.  But if you want to lump in all your pet issues in with protesting the Iraq war then you are going to lose my suppport, and the support of people like me.  You are going to kill the chance that those of us who oppose the war have right now: stopping the killing and bringing the troops home, and at the same time holding W responsible for this debacle.  If it is more important to you to align yourselves with the Hamas and the Hizbollah, then be my guest, but that's where I get off this train.

To be clear, I support a two-state solution.  I support the fundamental rightss of the Palestinians to live in their own state.  But at the same time, I ain't gonna listen as I hear a bunch of apologistic crap about why it is OK to bomb Israelis.  Also, I don't want to hear about how the US asked for its troubles either.  We did not ask for 9/11.  I am not against the Iraq war because I think we "deserved 9/11"; I am against the Iraq war because it has nothing to do with 9/11.  Becuase our leader is an incompetent liar who tries to link it to 9/11, and has destroyed our credibility in the world.  Again, you want to argue that the US is Satan, feel free, but that's where I get off this train.  

We Democrats have an opening right now.  Let's not squander it.  Let's focus on the one issue that unites us and unites a clear majority of the American people.  Skip the subsidiary bullshit.  Thanks, and I can't wait to get a bunch of angry comments about how I am a right-wing shill or something.

•  Israel / Palestine conflict an excuse for, not ...

  a cause of, political Islam, which should be THE unifying issue, not just in the US, but in the UK and the rest of the West, but Bush and Blair have so far proved to be cowards in dealing with political Islam.

  by Grok Your World on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 01:33:23 PM PDT

  •  i'd be interested to hear what you all have to say

    at my "600,000 ugly ducklings" diary which is just below right now. please, come join the conversation. we show unity in our diversity. "political" islam is indeed an issue we all need to understand better. just as we need to understand "political" xtianity and judaism.

    by chicago dyke on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 04:19:18 PM PDT

  •  The anti-everything demonstration

    I couldn't agree with New Dem more. The more I watched the demonstration, the more frustrated I became. There were members of every anti American faction you could imagine. The crowd didn't look or act very pleased with them either. They looked confused, as if wondering why some of those people were speaking at all. I'm a song-writer, and when I first came to Nashville, the advice I got most often from publishers was: Keep your message simple. Focus on one thing and hammer it home. No wonder the MSM doesn't show every minute of something like this demonstration. It was laughable. Yes, I care about the Cuban 5, and the Phillipinos, and the Puerto Ricans, and the Africans, but I care more about getting us out of Iraq right now. Some of the speakers were wonderful, like Ralph Nader and Jessica Lange. Some came off as raving lunatics.

    by Cassandra77 on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 04:31:27 PM PDT

    •  Um, that's "Filipino"

      Though I share your criticism that the speakers went too far "off message," listening to a speaker on the Philippines could be used as an opportunity to learn the correct spelling of its residents' designation.

      by elizp on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 05:15:59 PM PDT

      •  I agree

        Love it or leave it attitude isn't gonna fly.

        Rally should have been more on message.  Ending the Iraq War is something we all agree on, but you can't expect everyone to adopt your cause.

        When the crowd was becoming noticeably bothered by a long list of speakers who really didn't address ANY of the points we've been making for months about the war and Bush's handling of it, etc., etc, they should have gotten on with it.

        by jaywillie on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 07:46:28 PM PDT

        •  As a gay guy

          I was bothered by the Palestinian speakers--because, whatever injustices they may have suffered, their government has been pretty damn brutal against gay people. And when I hear "well, it's their culture," then maybe Isreal's treatment of Palenstinians is "just their culture." Yeah, I know. Two wrongs don't make a right. But neither does one wrong.

          by daulton on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 08:57:45 PM PDT

          •  As a non-gay guy ;)

            I am in agreement with you.

            by Montague on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 12:56:28 PM PDT

    •  then leave

      Form your own rally if you don't like ANSWER's. If you're too lazy to get off your ass to do that, then shut up - or leave.

      by bigbay on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 05:22:00 PM PDT

      •  That message is a sure winner

        by NewDem on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 05:57:45 PM PDT

      •  Exactly

        These people are the activists who make multi-issue politics their lives' work.

        When you show up as a "consumer" of rallies organized by someone else, you get what they've set up.  Don't expect them to alter for you the philosophy to which they devote their political lives.

        My question is, Why isn't there a monthly (15th?) rally in every community (no expensive airfares after this) until this war is over?  It certainly deserves at least that amount of attention.

        Now that's something you can take away from the frustrations experienced today...

        by HenryDavid on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 06:31:24 PM PDT

        •  I know I'll get flamed but who cares

          I think the dirty little secret of all this is that rally's are very marginally important at best.  Anyone who is honest recognizes that rally's are an outlet for feelings of helplessness and anger, mixed with a nostalgia for the 60's.  I know the right wing gets a whole lot done without big rally's.  They have a bunch of little rallys every week that intertwine completely with their social lives.  Called church.  I'm not saying get rid of big rallys, I go to them and generally like them mostly, but I do think we overemphasize their importance and impact greatly.  Our issue is not as visceral as Vietnam or Civil Rights and, barring some shit really hitting the fan it never will be.  Personally, I think talking to your neighbors, acquaintances, bar strangers about what's going on over some beers does a lot more.  I like the idea of not overtly political block parties as our little rallies.        

          by MatthewBrown on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 07:47:37 PM PDT

          •  rallys are worthless

            they make their participants look like weirdos to everday joes.

            even if the rally is huge, at over 100,000 people, that is a drop in the bucket. you know what? 100,000 people assemble every saturday to watch michigan games. and tennessee games. and florida games. and hundreds of thousands assemble to watch NASCAR, and horseraces. and tens of thousands congregate on a daily basis to watch baseball.

            the idea that anyone who has been to a sporting event is going to be impressed by a bunch of activists banding together to shout and wave banners is pretty stupid.  

            by The Exalted on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 12:35:24 AM PDT

          •  Agree

            in that it's mostly a personal "feel-good" experience, vs. an exercise of some sort of citizen power.  Only if the rally threatens to escalate into other citizen action does the Pres (as in Nixon) feel compelled to pay attention.

            What those other actions might be should be the topic for one and all to take up...

            by HenryDavid on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 03:53:58 PM PDT

        •  Some of us do this here.

          Why isn't there a monthly (15th?) rally in every community (no expensive airfares after this) until this war is over?  It certainly deserves at least that amount of attention.

           Every Friday afternoon between 8-30 of us Women in Black hold a silent vigil. We've been doing it since the start of the war, summer and winter.
          Dittoheads and church groups have been the most vicious in their opposition to our weekly vigil.

          by colleen on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 08:41:43 PM PDT

      •  Please.. seriously....

        Nice to see you have the love or leave it mentality of all the people you rail against.  That's always the most base, childish argument.  "If you didn't personally organize it, then you can't critique anything, ever, in any way.  Love it or leave it."  These are advertised by said group as an "anti-war rally".  It is not. It is a "mostly anti-war with a ton of bullshit which discredits the entire thing rally".  So yeah when they advertise themselves as one thing, I spend a lot of time and money to be there, and it's something else it tends to piss one off.  Two, it wouldn't matter what group organized the rally, there would always be looneys with their pet agendas coming out of the woodwork.  I've been to PLENTY of rallies not organized by ANSWER.  You know what the common denominator is?  There's always some dumbass screaming about Mumia.  I don't think there's any real solution to this problem, but ANSWER organizing a rally with the bullshit, literally, built in does not help at all.  Let them have two days of rallys; one for just the Iraq war and the next day for a clusterf$ck of every single issue one could ever imagine hating someone over.  As I said in another comment, a unified coalition is not a thousand slogans at the same rally.  It's just not.  When can we stop shooting ourselves in the foot?    

        by MatthewBrown on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 07:29:15 PM PDT

        •  FOCUS, PEOPLE, FOCUS!!!

          Amen!!  All I saw was a bunch of self-indulgent splinter-fringe wackos clinging to a bigger stage than their causes deserved.  The Cuban 5??? Come on!  Peace and Justice...period.  The Repugs have been winning because, despicable as their message is, they have message discipline.  The average viewer/reader/listener can only absorb so much at once.  It's called cognitive overload.  

          So recognize, my Brothers and Sisters, and stick to the f***ing script.  Plus, we're serving up way too much ammo for them to come up w/dismissive ripostes.   Success requires some discipline.  Look, the Repugs kept repeating the words "blow job" for four years and almost dumped the most successful prez in the past 50 years!  Certainly, w/some restraint, we can toss this loser!!!

          by serrano on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 08:14:11 PM PDT

      •  ANSWER is anit-American...

        And has been for a very long time. This rally was for one thing: to protest this illegally-prosecuted quagmire of a warr, based upon lies that are impeachable offenses, and the people who told us those lies time and again.

        I have no sympathy for all the others who really DO hate America and everything she is supposed to stand for. Just focus your hate on Dub & Co. and everything THEY stand for, and you'd be all right. Otherwise, go live with Assad in Syria!

        by GainesT1958 on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 08:34:54 PM PDT

    •  Cuban 5

      They were Cuban agents working to infiltrate anti Castro groups in Florida and send information about them back to Castro.  One worked at a military base where he had no access to any clasified information, his job was to notify Cuba if it looked like the US was preparing an imminent attack on Cuba.  In 1996 when Cuba shot down 2 planes violating it's airspace, one the the five was in a third plane that turned back when they were ordered to.  The prosecuter claimed that he notified Cuba of the flights, even though it was the FAA that notified Cuba.
      They were arrested after the Cuban government turned documents over to the FBI about anti Castro terrorists in the US.  Instead of arresting the terrorists, the FBI arrested the sources of the information.
      They were convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage and conspiracy to commit murder.  They were recently granted new trials by an appeals court because they didn't get a fair trial in Miami.

      by qw3rty on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 07:38:20 PM PDT

      •  Fine I'll bite...

        How are the anti Castro groups automatically terrorists?  How is an enemy country sending agents here to "spy" on our military in order to  prevent any miltary action against that country not espionage?  Just because you don't agree with our Cuba policy, doesn't mean you have to support people who are in all likelihood spies.   Just because you sympathize with Cuba and what these guys were doing does not change the fact that it was really, really illegal.  It's like everyone who proclaim Mumia innocent.  They confuse opposing police corruption and opression of black people, with supporting a man who shot someone else in the head at close range.      

        by MatthewBrown on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 08:02:56 PM PDT

        •  asdf

          I never said all anti Castro groups are terrorists.  Miami based rightwing groups have snuck into Cuba and shot at and bombed hotels on multiple occasians.  In 1976 Luis Posada blew up a Cuban airline plane killing 73 people. Luis Posada was recently arrested in the US, but they won't turn him over to Cuba, or to Venezuela where he is also wanted.  Search google for terrorism against cuba.

          Only 1 of the 5 worked at a US military base.  He worked in some sort of manual labor job and had no access to any classified information.  The military base was open to the public.  The other 4 were spying on anti-Castro groups, this is not a crime.  The fact that they were there was no secret. They turned over their information to the US athorities, and that is why they were arrested.

          The were convicted of conspiracy to commit murder and sentanced to life, because Cuba shot down 2 planes that violated their airspace.  The same group flew over Cuba and dropped leaflets telling people to overthrow the government on 2 dozen occasions before Cuba finally shot them down.  If a Cuban plane illegally flew over the US dropping leaflets, do you think the US would let them do it over 20 times before shooting them down?

          These people were tried in Miami, where there streets named after the people killed in the 2 planes.  They couldn't get a fair trial there, and a US appeals court agreed, they will be getting new trials.

          http://www.freethefive.org/

          by qw3rty on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 09:47:22 PM PDT

          •  Who gives a flying fuck?

            I mean, thanks for the well-organized info and all, but it has nothing nothing nothing to do with the Iraq War. That's the point. If there are that many people who are up in arms about the fucking Cuban Five, hold a rally just for that cause. Make banners and shit. Knock yourselves out. You might even convince a few people that the cause is just. But stop distracting everyone from the dang Iraq War.

            by felagund on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 10:48:29 PM PDT

•  asdf

  I agree that the biggest impediment to the anti-war movement has been ANSWER.  Their support of violent groups (i.e. FARC) has made it impossible for real peace groups to associate themselves with them.  While 100,000 people will come out to the march, the groups that have historically had the strongest anti-war voices are marginalized and unseen.

  by Dave the pro on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 01:33:57 PM PDT

  •  Don't get me started on ANSWER!!...;)

    a previous diary on the subject: I Have Problems with ANSWER

    by PhillyGal on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 01:39:26 PM PDT

    •  my humble contributions:

      ANSWER is a Pinko Fucktard Front, (4.00 / 13)

      but as Meteor Blades chides me, only 'some' of the founders are Maoists.  Oh, okey-dokey then ;)

      To my knowledge, ANSWER was founded days after 9/11.  IMO, it was founded to exploit the invevitable anti-war movement; to exploit good sincere Americans who otherwise would have nothing to do w/their fringe causes.  It's a shame really -- in a paranoid moment, ANSWER is a Rove Wet Dream:  It Marginalizes Itself.

      Good point re moveon.org -- what didn't they grab the anti-war movement by the reins? They were founded years before, were already organized .. I don't get it.

      'No Matter How Much Cats Fight, There Always Seem to be Plenty of Kittens'... Abraham Lincoln

      by PhillyGal on Sat Sep 24th, 2005 at 10:03:54 PDT
      [ Reply to This ]

      Furthermore, not only does ANSWER (4.00 / 14)

      marginalize the anti-war movement from mainstream Americans, more importantly and deviously, IMO, ANSWER marginalizes Democratic Political Leaders from the anti-war movememnt too -- who's the highest level elected speaker -- Congresswoman McKinney! Oh, I'm impressed -- not one U.S. Senator will speak in front of their banners, so who does that benefit??

      by PhillyGal on Sat Sep 24th, 2005 at 10:12:15 PDT
      [ Parent | Reply to This ]

      by PhillyGal on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 01:41:59 PM PDT

      •  asdf

        Good comments...if you happen to this PhillyGal person, tell her she did a good job.

        by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 01:47:50 PM PDT

        •  She talks to herself, so I will...;)

          by PhillyGal on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 01:49:53 PM PDT

          •  Evidently,

            Thomas C takes offense to your comment...let me amend what I previously said: If you see PhillyGal, you should apologize for making an unproductive comment about yourself.

            by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 04:11:56 PM PDT

            •  lol you're driving me to drink, Johnny :)

              by PhillyGal on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 05:07:04 PM PDT

      •  just wondering

        How do you feel about the Refusnik who spoke at the rally?

        by ctkeith on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 01:52:13 PM PDT

        •  Hey, ct- are u blogging from there?

          or did your hip act up? And which speaker? (I had C-Span on in the background while I was ranting here.

          " Jessica Lange, actor
          

          • George Galloway, British Member of Parliament
            
          • Ramsey Clark, former U.S. attorney general
            
          • Cindy Sheehan*
            
          • Dolores Huerta, Co-Founder, United Farm Workers of America
            
          • Malik Rahim, New Orleans community activist who survived Hurricane Katrina
            
          • Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney
            
          • Ralph Nader
            
          • Mahdi Bray, Exec. Dir., Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation
            
          • Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, attorney/co-founder, Partnership for Civil Justice, National Lawyers Guild
            
          • Elias Rashmawi, National Council of Arab Americans
            
          • Brian Becker, National Coordinator, A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition
            
          • Lynne Stewart, human rights attorney
            
          • Rev. Al Sharpton*
            
          • Anita Dennis, mother of Iraq War veteran / resister
            
          • Clayola Brown, President of the A. Philip Randolph Institute, Vice President of UNITE HERE*
            
          • Ben Dupuy, Former Ambassador At Large for the government of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide
            
          • Jos Williams, President, President of the Metropolitan Washington Council, AFL-CIO
            
          • Michael Berg, father of Nicholas Berg
            
          • Christine Araquel, Alliance for a Just and Lasting Peace in the Philippines
            
          • Andy Thayer, Equality Campaign
            
          • Curtis Muhammed, Community Labor Union of New Orleans
            
          • Margaret Prescod, Global Women's Strike
            
          • Hadi Jawad, founder of Crawford Peace House
            
          • Chris Silvera, Teamsters Black Caucus
            
          • Musa Al-Hindi, Al-Awda National
            
          • Michel Shehadeh, L.A-8 defendant, a Palestinian activist framed COINTELPRO-style
            
          • Nancy Wolforth, Executive Vice President, AFL-CIO
            
          • Manuel Santos, Socialist Front of Puerto Rico
            
          • Brenda Stokely, Million Worker March, New York City Labor Against the War
            
          • Peta Lindsay, Youth and Student A.N.S.W.E.R. Student, Howard University student
            
          • Mounzer Sleiman, National Council of Arab Americans
            
          • Macrina Cardenas, Mexicanos Sin Fronteras
            
          • Jeanette Caceres, Spoken word artist from New York University
            
          • Gloria La Riva, National Committee to Free the Five
            
          • Riya Ortiz, Network in Solidarity with the People of the Philippines, Campaign for Justice Not War
            
          • Larry Holmes, Troops Out Now Coalition
            
          • Chuck Kaufman, Nicaragua Network
            
          • Women's Anti-Imperialist League
            
          • Representative of Bayan USA
            
          • Eugene Puryear, Youth and Student A.N.S.W.E.R. Student, Howard University student" link

          by PhillyGal on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 01:57:12 PM PDT

          •  Galloway, Ramsey Clarke, AND Lynne Stewart?

            Didn't Osama and Saddam get invites?

            by Geekesque on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 02:03:55 PM PDT

            •  I'm not a fan of

              Galloway but why compare him to Osama?

              by thomcall on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 02:06:37 PM PDT

              •  Have you seen the comments he makes when

                he travels to the Mideast?

                He talks about Jerusalem being occupied and "raped by foreigners.", i.e. Jews.

                He approves of Iraqi insurgents murdering secular left trade unionists.

                He says that Syrians are "fortunate" to have Bashar al-Assad as their dictator.

                He says that the insurgents in Iraq are heroic martyrs who are writing their names in the stars.

                He is demanding the release of his "dear, dear friend" Tariq Aziz.

                by Geekesque on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 02:11:28 PM PDT

                •  Your exchange is exactly the point of the diary

                  Now you two are talking about a Scottish man's speeches and Irael and Palestine, while many of us thought today was supposed to be about The United States getting out of Iraq.

                  This rally is looking like a disaster if the point was to talk about the US Iraq conflict and be an bring the troops home rally.

                  by inclusiveheart on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 02:17:42 PM PDT

                  •  Indeed, sir or madam.

                    In arguing for a withdrawal from Iraq, it is vital that folks argue that doing so is in the best interests of the United States.

                    Most Americans don't really care that Stalinists oppose the Iraqi occupation.

                    by Geekesque on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 02:22:14 PM PDT

                    •  Yeah and if they knew that Stalinists

                      oppose the occupation they might wrongly conclude that it is a good thing we are occupying in the first place.

                      by inclusiveheart on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 02:33:07 PM PDT

                      •  The mirror image of "Bush is for/against

                        it, so it must be wrong/right."

                        by Geekesque on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 03:31:06 PM PDT

                        •  This comment is really skinny

                          I just thought I should point out that this is a very skinny comment.  That is all for now.

                          by Dave the pro on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 04:26:02 PM PDT

                          •  This

                            Is skin nier

                            by daulton on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 09:06:03 PM PDT

                •  Galloway is nuts

                  But his point on Jerusalem is totally valid, and he was one of the earliest outspoken opponents of Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses (i.e., when Donald Rumsfeld was shaking hands with the monster).

                  But yeah I feel a lot of what he says is ultimately pointless since it's pretty obvious he enjoys the sound of his own voice more than actually getting anything done, and often the sounds from his voice are rather anti-Semitic in tone.

                  by salsa0000 on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 03:25:29 PM PDT

                  •  Israelis in Jerusalem are foreigners

                    who are raping it?

                    That's the rhetoric of Hamas and bin Laden.

                    by Geekesque on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 03:33:10 PM PDT

                    •  Whatever

                      Jerusalem is an occupied city and was illegally taken by force - in fact (perhaps you don't know, so I hope you learn something from this exchange) the whole of the West Bank is known internationally as the Occupied Territories (Gaza was taken illegally as well, but the Israelis finally did come to their senses and saw that their position there was indefensible politically, militarily, as well as demographically) - furthermore the designation has been recognised several times by the United Nations.

                      I am kind of surprised that a message board like Daily Kos would have people who so contradicted liberals ideals regarding the importance of international institutions like the U.N.  Perhaps you are a troll and I'm just being naive?  I have a bad memory for stuff like that..so I'm sorry for wasting your time if you were just here to spout rightwing talking points.  Even then, it should be pointed out that just because Hamas and Osama take some certain position doesn't mean that it is wrong, per se.  This 'guilt by association' kind of logic just doesn't work when we are confronted by binary decisions - to say that the Israelis are not illegal occupiers of Jerusalem is to take sides of the likes of Benny Elon (Mr. Ethnic Cleansing Proponent himself) so you're in no better position than I on this score (in fact as outlined above you're in a worse position since at least I have the U.N. on my side).

                      So kindly take your black vs. white, world-without-nuance, Bushian attitude toward the world, toss it out the window, and grow up.

                      by salsa0000 on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 07:23:14 PM PDT

                      •  2/3 of Jerusalem is Jewish.

                        A solid majority of its residences (most anti-Israel folks are big on the idea of self-determination, except when it comes to Jews)wish to remain part of Israel.

                        Galloway considers the great majority of actual residents and citizens of Jerusalem to be foreigners who are raping it.  That is an EXTREMIST position.

                        The Hamas/bin Laden/Galloway position is that the Jews must be driven out of Jerusalem.  

                        That is an EXTREMIST position.  Rational, sane people recognize that at the very least West Jerusalem is and will always be part of Israel.

                        by Geekesque on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 06:48:42 AM PDT

                        •  Changed your position mid-discussion

                          Geekesque, if you can agree that East Jerusalem should go to the Palestinians and West Jerusalem to the Israelis (a deal that Arafat should have taken and will be forever remembered in infamy for not taking), then I think we can have some very useful discussions on the question of Palestine :)

                          by salsa0000 on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 08:47:43 AM PDT

                          •  That's always been my position.

                            I seriously doubt that folks like Galloway mean "West Jerusalem" when they say that Jerusalem is occupied and raped by foreigners.

                            Of course the issue of Israel and Palestine, and Jerusalem, is complex.  The ultimate solution, for all of those who see clearly, is to divide Jerusalem and/or grant it some kind of international status, get Israel out of the great, great majority of the West Bank, and get the EU and US to kick in a bunch of money to compensate Palestinian refugees for the fact that they'll never return to what is now Israel.

                            In terms of US and UK politics, the Israel-firsters and hardcore Likudniks have more or less coalesced around the right, whereas those who think that Israel's existence is a mistake that needs to be corrected tend to coalesce around the left.  I have equal contempt for both groups, but the latter are the ones who live in my neighborhood, so to speak.

                            by Geekesque on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 12:49:43 PM PDT

                            •  It's funny how close the reasonable positions are

                              While I do go a bit further than you (I think that Israel should totally leave the West Bank and Jerusalem in exchange for Palestinians giving up the right to return to their land, but being an outsider I would absolutely not begrudge the Palestinian Authority if it were to negotiate away West Jerusalem), it is rather frustrating to see that there are people on both sides who go oh-so-far on this issue.  It's almost like the question of Palestine is to a lot of the Islamists and radical Zionists what abortion is to fundamentalist Christians in America - so much of a wedge political issue with such an industry built around it that no one wants the problem to go away.

                              But (while the problem is very different of course) there is some hope out there when we see that the IRA is at long last disarming - so let's raise our glasses to hope, shall we?

                              by salsa0000 on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 06:41:42 PM PDT

                              •  My glass is raised. n/t

                                by Geekesque on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 07:12:39 AM PDT

              •  Galloway's a 'tool'

                by PhillyGal on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 02:20:57 PM PDT

                •  But has he orchestrated the

                  murder of 3000 Americans or are we just resorting to foaming-at-the-mouth comparisons ? The original post comparing him to Osama was bullshit and you are propagating this bullshit even further. Come back and talk to me when George Galloway kills 3000 people. You don't get to compare people to Osama Bin Laden or Zarqawi just because they talk bullshit or just because you disagree with what they say.

                  by thomcall on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 02:24:23 PM PDT

                  •  Oh, relax

                    The point of the original comment was that Galloway, Clarke, and Stewart were inappropriate speakers. Invoking Saddam and bin Laden takes that idea to its extreme for humorous effect.

                    Witty comments aren't "foaming-at-the-mouth comparisons." Chill out.

                    by RatIV on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 05:37:20 PM PDT

                  •  Clarke, Stewart, and Galloway are supporters

                    of totalitarianism, mass murder, and terrorism.

                    This isn't even a matter of opinion--it's bleeding fact.  Anyone familiar withClarke's and Galloway's records knows of their support for Saddam, etc etc.   (And please don't give me the "Galloway opposed Saddam way back when.  He flipped his position on Saddam when Saddam became an enemy of the United States instead of Galloway's beloved USSR.)  

                    Lynne Stewart is a follower of Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman who broke the law to support his cause

                    by Geekesque on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 06:55:32 AM PDT

            •  Nice use of the Right Wing Talking Points

              The reality is- none of you have actually BEEN to any of these rallies (this was my 3rd) and that ANSWER doesn't really mean much to the majority of the people who show up. It's a protest event, you don't have to agree with everyone you are standing in solidarity with on every single issue- you just need the balls to stand with them at that particular moment on one issue. END THIS FUCKING WAR.

              If you actually attended these kinds of events instead of passing judgement from your high castles, you'd know that tons of people speak at them, read poetry, play some music or whatever and only probably 20-30% of the crowd ever hears it.

              by Demise on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 04:18:48 PM PDT

              •  Is everything about YOU?

                ANSWER's endorsement and sponsorship is exactly why our elected Dem Leaders BOYCOTT these rallies, so where's the benefit?

                by PhillyGal on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 05:05:34 PM PDT

                •  What the...

                  Is everything about you? That commenter said why she went. THAT is reality. Jeez.

                  by Earl on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 05:19:45 PM PDT

                •  OMG!

                  Sooo, ANSWER was founded shortly after 9/11 but they are the reason the Dem leaders boycott these rallies?

                  OK, I'll bite, what was their excuse before?

                  by Tranny on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 09:44:27 PM PDT

                  •  before 9/11

                    1) we were not at war
                    2) the dems were in power

                    so what exactly would there be rallies for, and why would dem leaders be attending them?
                    

                    by The Exalted on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 12:40:07 AM PDT

                    •  I didn't expressed

                      correctly what I was trying to say and in the chronology intended.  I was referring to the prelude to the Iraq's invasion.  My apologies for my lack of timeline clarity in the formulation of my point.

                      We were fighting like hell to stop a war on Iraq that most of "our" Dems voted for.

                      ANSWER organized protests and I marched alongside them. The Dems "Leadership" Was missing in action, correction, they were voting for a preemptive war.

                      by Tranny on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 01:15:36 AM PDT

                      •  Actually

                        At the first major ANSWER organized rally in DC right before the war there were a few Democratic Representatives at the event and they spoke out against the war.

                        So, the line that PhillyGal is pushing is just that- propaganda.

                        by Demise on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 10:02:13 AM PDT

                        •  Of course

                          The propaganda meisters are running at full speed. Nothing new here.

                          However, Iraq continues to drain American Blood and the Treasury, it needs to end.

                          Putting that aside for a sec., the repuks have passed all king of legislation that hits the mayority extremelly hard, while at the same time, opposed bills that would help a lot of us, our first responders, our veterans, etc.

                          Many dems spoked against what repuks were proposing, then voted with the repuks.

                          The Iraq war was about the same story.

                          by Tranny on Tue Sep 27, 2005 at 12:35:16 AM PDT

                •  PhillyGal

                  Obviously, everything is about you.

                  While you boycott this event because of a few of the event organizers, tens of thousands of your fellow Americans were in DC making a statement.

                  Sadly, they will be ignored for now but next year, there will be even more people in DC and more the year after. Soon, people will begin to attach the lack of jobs and the wage gap to this rally and maybe there will be a couple rallies instead of one big one.

                  In the meantime, because of a few marginal voices (compared to the amount of people involved) in the organzing apparatus, you will be sitting on your duff complaining instead of actually helping to effect change.

                  by Demise on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 09:59:23 AM PDT

              •  There should have been only one topic

                At the Rally and that is getting the fuck out of Iraq. Once you start talking about other foreign policy issues you dilute the overall message. I only watched a little bit of this rally I had to turn it off because it was verging on becoming anti-semitic. The organizers of this rally made a big mistake when they allowed the crazy anti jew bigots to speak their mind.

                by loyaldemocrat on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 05:11:05 PM PDT

                •  9-11 terra 9-11 terra. Hey, that's on message!

                  
                       I had begun planning to go to the rally back in late August since I have some vacation time coming and this would have been a great opportunity for me.  Well, I got busy here at KOS, reading many of the threads and came across the one regarding ANSWER and the negative element that would be present.  I'm now ashamed that I and possibly others fell for the diary's premise, a lot of good came out of this rally and it could have been even more of a success.  

                  Can you tell me what the perfect rally would be like?  Maybe you can organize the next one for the rest of us slacker absentees who sat at home with cspan.  Just promise me it won't look like the GOP convention or Nuremburg.

                  by stagnational on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 07:23:40 PM PDT

                  •  A perfect rally wouldn't have totalitarians

                    organizing it, and wouldn't feature as speakers convicted supporters of terrorism (Lynne Stewart), unreformed Stalinist tankies (Galloway), and seditious old creeps (Clarke).

                    by Geekesque on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 07:08:31 AM PDT

          •  My Dr. and my wife threatened

            to kill me if I went.I'm schedualed surgery next Saturday and my hip may not make it until then so I stayed home to avoid divorce.

            There was indded a rufusnik who spoke and was on C-span.His name was Ghanim Khalil.Sorry you missed it.

            by ctkeith on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 02:22:37 PM PDT

            •  I believe the Israeli refuser was Stav Adivi

              Stav Adivi is a decorated officer in the Israeli Defense Forces. A major in the reserves, Stav is one of the highest ranking officers among the 550+ reserve combat officers and IDF soldiers to have signed the Combatant Letter refusing to serve in the occupied territories. He is a board member of the Israeli Committee against House Demolitions (ICAHD) and one of the organizers of ICAHD-USA. Stav holds a BS from Tel Aviv University in Political Science and MSc in Peace and Development research from Gutenberg University Sweden. A native of Israel, Stav currently lives in North Carolina.

              link

              by bumblebums on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 02:31:52 PM PDT

            •  Yeah, I thought you were pushing

              your luck w/surgery next week! :)

              by PhillyGal on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 02:32:28 PM PDT

              •  I saw Al Franken at Yale last night

                and was still considering driving down but it would have meant crutches instead of a cane to walk any distance and the honey-do list for the week before surgery would have never got done because I knew I wouldn't be able to walk for at least 3 days.

                Oh well,perhaps the next rally will be sponsored by who it should have been,the Democratic party,and we'll all be happy.

                by ctkeith on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 02:41:34 PM PDT

        •  oh, ctkeith, surely you know by now

          that the Refuseniks, the 80k Israeli peace protesters who marched en masse in Jerusalem last year, the other Israeli soldiers against the occupation, who put together an angry multimedia exhibit and got in fights with their elders about being sent to kill and die for injustice, the kibbutzim kid who took off his uniform and went and stood side by side with Palestinian demonstrators in a peaceful protest and got shot by his "own" side - causing his father to think twice about the Israeli media for the first time - and Tikkun, all don't exist.

          --At least as far as the American Likudniks are concerned - any more than the American Jewish (Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, original and neo-) anti-Zionists exist. It's waaay too complex and muddy and shades-of-gray for them!

          You will never, never get an answer when you say, what about X? and post a link to one of the above making a declaration. It's the most shocking demonstration of lalala I can't HEAR you denial you'll find, short of the "humanitarian war" liberal hawkery insistence that we've just been spreadin' freedom wherever the Stars'n'Stripes have gone in the past...

          by bellatrys on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 02:27:51 PM PDT

          •  Imagine for a second...

            That those of us who were offended by the Free Palestine focus of the speeches are not likudniks.  You can call us that if it makes you feel good but it's simply not the reality for many of us.  Many of us are pro-Israeli anti-occupation Americans. Is that too complex or muddy for you?

            by princemyshkin on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 02:39:58 PM PDT

            •  Bravo

              I'm with the Prince, and I'm sure we're not unusual, especially on dkos.  For some reason it will probably surprise many others on dkos (though I am continually amazed as to why it surprises), but there are plenty of positions on the Israel/Palestinian issue between extreme 'black' and extreme 'white'.  Lots of them are (whether you agree with them or not) fairly reasonable, too.  Sheesh.

              by SamSinister on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 08:04:13 PM PDT

              •  I think they both suck

                Israel and Palestine, that is. Both regimes are murderous, brutal and stupidly shortsighted. I'd like to see them all locked in a room with weapons; the world would be a better place after they all ran out of bullets.

                I'm as anti-war as anyone, and I can totally understand how the intransigence w/r/t the P-I question stirs up Muslim terrorist activity in other places. But that doesn't mean I'm going to support a rally where people are waving Palestinian flags around as if those fuckers didn't blow up innocent college kids at discos. Sure, the Israelis do it too -- but supporting them doesn't seem to be the sine qua non of joining an ANSWER rally.

                by felagund on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 10:55:21 PM PDT

          •  I am always reminded of the saying-

            from the 1970s or thereabouts...

            "Hey man, why are we exporting the American way of life, if its so good they' ll come over here and steal it."

            Or something like that.

            Hmmm. Israel's right to exist.

            The people in Israel Palestine all have a right to live in peace and to be afforded the rights under the International Charter of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Human Rights Convention (HCR)

            (Oh, I forgot the US does not recognise these international instruments,)

            The "state" of Israel exists due to the British betrayal of the Palestinians way back post WWII. Israelis were the first to employ terror tactics against the British. Moshe Dayan admitted as much, as well as manufactuing the pretext for the seven day war.

            Does that mean they can't just all get along? Not while the nutjob US Jesusists and Zionists remain in power.

            The instability in the region suits too many self interested groups. They may not be colluding but that self interest and power seeking ensures things will not improve. Call it an emergent pattern from individual behaviour.  The peace process is stagnant as a result.

            Iraq represents another opportunity for the same or similar groups to create another situation in the Middle East, except this time oil is involved. Bonus.

            While I agree that the marches of protest should be single issue in order to present a united voice and to provice the MSM an easy sound bite, the underlying issue is the same.

            Both occupations are wrong. Both are fruits off a poisonous tree.

            by ranz on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 03:13:08 PM PDT

            •  Nice...

              The "state" of Israel exists due to the British betrayal of the Palestinians way back post WWII. Israelis were the first to employ terror tactics against the British. Moshe Dayan admitted as much, as well as manufactuing the pretext for the seven day war.

              Nice.  So Israel is illegitimate, hm?
              

              by gpurcell on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 04:10:10 PM PDT

            •  Nicely done.

              Strategic Middle East Terrorism, born at the King David Hotel...

              The King David Hotel bombing (July 22, 1946) was a bombing attack against the British government of Palestine by members of Irgun --a militant Zionist group. The Irgun exploded a bomb at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which had been the base for the British Secretariat, the military command and a branch of the Criminal Investigation Division (police). 91 people were killed, most of them civilians: 28 British, 41 Arab, 17 Jewish, and 5 other. Around 45 people were injured.

              The attack was initially ordered by David Ben Gurion*, who was in the United States, but he later changed his mind and ordered the bombing to be cancelled. But Menachem Begin, the head of Irgun, went ahead anyway. Both Ben Gurion and Begin would later become Israeli Prime Ministers. The attack was commanded by Yosef Avni and Yisrael Levi. [Wiki]

              Now, there are so many sins of omission and comission, of quaint forgetfulness or outright denial, that the only base admission that anyone might agree on is: Enough is enough!
              .
              Our dear leader had the metaphorical wedge of the shared shock of the world at his command. A truly tectonic moment to take Arab and Israelite aside--in front of the world--and say,
              .
              Fix this. Your petulance and selfishness, your autocracies and poverty is now our 3000 dead. We are partially to blame, and so we will help. We have money and brains and muscle. Take what you admire in us, leave what you don't. But you will fix this. All of you. For your children, if not for yourselves. Think hard. The world demands your answer. They, and we, will not accept no. And you will not like the alternative.
              .
              That statement, made 2 weeks after 9-11, would have proved that 9-11 did indeed change everything. But most usefully, for the right president, it should have changed the need for parlor language and elephant ignoring to the betterment of all. Finally, a straight-shooting American cowboy. THAT, they would buy.
              .
              Instead, we all know what happened.

              by fouro on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 05:24:22 PM PDT

          •  oh, my!

            An ANGRY MULTIMEDIA EXHIBIT.  Wow.  That'll change the world.

            by Adam B on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 03:24:41 PM PDT

      •  well, anyone else who wants to

        can certainly put in the legwork to organize a large scale protest of their own.  you don't have to agree with everything to do with ANSWER to attend an event of theirs, however.  that's just silly.    

        Personally I do believe in Israel's right to exist.  But only because it already exists.  Creating a religious state in that region and displacing people in countries which already existed there was a terrible mistake, one the world would be wise to avoid in the future.  Dissassembling Israel would be a terrible error.  But Israel turning over seized, contested, and occupied land, arable land in particular, as well as access to water, would not be a mistake, it should have happened years and years ago.

        but whatever.  this is why greater numbers make these events stronger.  more viewpoints represented, more grievances being aired.  

        this comment that Senators are embarassed to appear at the demonstration - you know what? fuck them.  fuck the US senate, and all of the fools who let themselves get deceived into breaching the Constitution and handing the power to declare war over to a retard like George Bush.  Fuck them.  If any of those fucking losers had an ounce of spine, and actually opposed the war, they'd be up there, saying "I don't agree with all of the viewpoints being expressed by ANSWER, but this is how I feel."

        There is nothing stopping any of them from doing so, other than their own cowardice and moral timidity.  I applaud every person at that protest, even the ones I'd never stop arguing with if I met them.

        by itsbenj on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 03:47:58 PM PDT

      •  Agreed

        It's not that all the pols are wrong or wishy-washy, tho clearly too many fit that description, they're way too smart to get painted in the same pic w/these fools.  Just look what they did w/Kerry and Jane Fonda, all those years later.  We've got issues that have bedrock appeal, anti-War and anti-Corruption, Fairness, Peace, Saving Innocent Human Life from Drowning in Fetid Waters, and we're listening about Cuba and Haiti...Mehtinks we need a new ANSWER!!!

        by serrano on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 08:19:24 PM PDT

      •  Right on--We Need New Mobe II

         As a former member of SDS, I was outraged at the moderates (MOBE) who "co-opted" the peace movement in the late 60s--but guess what? They had creds with mainstream politicians and entertainment acts that drew HUGE crowds. The last marches were bringing millions to DC--and that was in the days of fossil communcations, when we spoke via OJ cans attached by strings.

        So let's review: 1/2 the country is pissed to the gills at this administration and only a few hundred thou show for a demo? There should have been 2 million there today. Time for us to get co-opted again. Let the far left get furious all over again--we'll show up anyway.

         The frustration in the crowd today was palpable, from the paralysis--a metaphor for the peace movement if ANSWER/UFPJ stay in charge--to the inane speeches. ANSWER et al will never subordinate their own agenda to the urgency of winning back the Senate (and maybe the House) in '06, because Answer doesn't give a flying crap about electoral politics. Wish I had a buck for every middle-class/trust-fund radical who doesn't have to worry about gov't cuts to social programs.  

        PS. I eventually let go of my fury toward MOBE--it was replaced with my hatred for the Weather Underground for totally screwing us.  
        

        by darcarama on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 09:06:06 PM PDT

        •  You made a profound point...

          that gives me far reaching observations.

          "ANSWER et al will never subordinate their own agenda to the urgency of winning back the Senate (and maybe the House) in '06, because Answer doesn't give a flying crap about electoral politics."

          One is that if ANSWER says let's vote for this or that, or let's support this cause or that one, what do you think will happen?

          Millions of us will Cheney them.

          They oppose the war on Iraq, so do I, they have other agenda that I may agree with or not. If and when I don't want to be at their side on a particular action to take, I go my separate way.

          Chill man, they just make the call, we need their organizing capabilities, so we march together 'cause we're on agreement on the main theme.

          As far as the choice of speakers, I personally know and love members of the ANSWER coalition in SF and have attended their action planning meetings and have a standing invitation to do so in the future, if and when I want, you can do so too and participate  in your local chapter, if your suggestions are sound, they'll be acted upon.

          ANSWER is not run by brown shirt trolls, they lean more toward the anarchist spectrum, you know, extreme Democracy? You can call any one of them on their shit. Everybody's ideas matter except the reactionary or extreme right wing ideology for obvious reasons.

          by Tranny on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 10:15:03 PM PDT

          •  ANSWER =Oral Roberts U

            
            True, but no major polit. figure who could attract a crowd will show to one of their events.

            The argument that ANSWER is to us what the far right religious crazies are to them--and how they don't shy from them...THEY aren't scared that someone will call them a bunch of fascist racist pigs--but we have to worry about getting called commies--'cause that's far worse--as if.

            So from an organizing standpoint, if we are to have a successful antiwar movement (or rather anti Iraq movement--heaven forbid we even say antiwar)which pays off politically in '06, then a more centrist group/coalition must step up to the plate.

            by darcarama on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 03:35:50 AM PDT

  •  ANSWER

    I thought about going to the rally today.  Then I turned on WPFW (Pacifica in DC) and they were interviewing Ramsey Clark and.. <sigh>.  I can't do it.  I don't agree with ANSWER and I won't go to an event they've organized.  It's frustrating.  It seems like it is always, always the same collection of tangentially related/utterly unrelated causes and groups at these big DC demonstrations, and I've been to a few in the past, and I don't see what it is accomplishing.  

    by daria g on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 03:26:19 PM PDT

  •  as I said before

    Do your own work, form your own rally, if you don't like ANSWER's.

    Stop sniveling like a child about the far left -'they' (who did the work) get to determine the message.

    by bigbay on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 05:24:46 PM PDT

    •  Sniveling?

      I wasn't aware I was sniveling.  And I certainly wasn't complaining about the far left.  I am complaining about ANSWER and the fact that some of the positions that they take make it impossible for groups that have a much more profound connection to non-violent activism to be a presence at the rally.  However, ANSWER doesn't give a damn that Friends and Quaker groups and a whole host of other "far left" organizations can't be associated with them, because ANSWER supports violent groups.  These other groups' inability to organize these events is another topic of discussion, although Code Pink did a great march just before the war in DC.

      by Dave the pro on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 05:53:41 PM PDT

•  Eh

  No, you're probably pretty much within the mainstream of Daily Kos and Democratic Party thought.  I would guess that the ideology of the organizers of the rally diverges from that of the participants on the Israel/Palestine issue as well.  Israel enjoys very wide support among Americans.  I also believe that the "two state solution" is very well supported, but I am not sure about the actual survey data.

  by bink on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 01:36:12 PM PDT

  •  regardless

    it is a mistake for ANSWER to link the issues of Israel and the US in Iraq.

    Linking Israel and Iraq is like linking Iraq and 9/11.

    It's possible to concoct rationalizations to link any two issues, if one is sufficiently motivated to do so.

    Linking Israel and Iraq may be perceived as an attempt to exploit anger and despair over the war for a separate Arab political cause. Which is a sure way to alienate and anger people, and, in my opinion, is also morally wrong.

    by coldeye on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 03:46:02 PM PDT

    •  ANSWER didn't link...

      Israel and war in Iraq.  The repuks did.

      I seem to remember that one of the arguments against Sadam and a reason given for the attack against Iraq was that he paid money to suicide bombers that went to kill people in Israel.

      As a matter of fact, isn't that one of the filthy Right Wing Pundit's talking points and repeatedly regurgitated TO THIS VERY DAY by the "ditto-bobbleheads" and others of their ilk?

      Israel had nothing  to lose and a lot to gain with Sadam's departure.  Come to think of it, they'd love to see the Ayatollas of Iran  go the same route. Does it ring any bells?

      Would you agree with that?

      by Tranny on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 10:27:45 PM PDT

    •  Black and white...

      as well as Good v. Evil...polarization is better left in the simplistic hands of the Right, no?

      I don't agree with much of anything Answer had to say today. That doesn't translate into supporting the war simply because they don't, ya know?    

      by MissAnneThrope on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 10:50:44 PM PDT

  •  I support an nation for palestine but

    I also support Isreal's right to defend itself from crazy fantaical suicide bombers. If that shit was going on here in America our response to the terroists would make Isreals response look tame.

    by loyaldemocrat on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 05:14:49 PM PDT

  •  Ho, Ho, Ho . . .

    This is deja vu all over again.  During anti-Vietnam war marches in the late sixties and early seventies, I never felt comfortable being near those who were chanting "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the NLF is gonna win."

    The NLF did win, and the results included re-education camps, boat people, and a state that only recently is emerging from totalitarianism.  That doesn't mean our involvement wasn't counter-productive, self-destructive and even criminal in its tactics.

    It's one thing to oppose a war.  It's another thing to "root" for those who are killing our guys (and especially in Iraq, many Iraqi civlians).  
    

    by Upper West on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 07:10:03 PM PDT

•  Am going on a bike ride

  instead of traveling to SF for the march, for the very reason you state.

  Imagine if the protest was ONLY about the Iraq war, we would have triple the number of people out there.

  by SanJoseLady on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 01:36:24 PM PDT

  •  Many of us wanted nothing to do...

    ... with ANSWER. You can join us tonight at Gordon Bierch in SF tonight, maybe?

    by highacidity on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 02:22:29 PM PDT

    •  I couldn't make it

      had some family things come up, not sure if napa will work, damn it get down to my side of the tracks!  Just very difficult for me to travel around right now...sigh.

      by SanJoseLady on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 10:01:34 PM PDT

  •  My own story

    I live near San Jose myself. A few years ago, I went to a big anti-war rally in SF. On the bus ride there, I spent most of the ride arguing with a loud mouth moron (and half the riders supporting him) who kept talking about how much he hated Isreal. He said all the land should be given to the group that was there first. When I pointed out the Jews were there 5,000 years ago, this genius said, "That's only if you believe the Bible." Then he called me a "Bush-lover", a "Sharon-lover," and plenty of other names.

    At the time, I belonged to a left-wing club on my college campus. I was driven to resign after I stood up for the one Jewish member of our club who dared to write emails defending Isreal. He wrote the emails annonymously for fear of violence. When I defended his thoughtful emails, members started rumors that I was the author and that I was Jewish (neither being true), and several told me I was no longer wanted there.

    Being in the Left and sticking up for a Jew can feel like being white in the 40's sticking up for a black guy. Instead of "nigger-lover," you get called "zionlist," which amounts to the same thing.

    It used to be only right-wingers denounced people for being insufficiantly hateful, calling them _-lovers, as though love were the most shameful emotion. Some people want to take the Left down that same ugly road. That's when I want out.

    by foxfire burns on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 02:41:57 PM PDT

    •  I've dealt with those same people

      since Vietnam.  The first time someone questioned my anti-war bona fides was when the subject of Israel came up.  I've always sided with the left wing in Israel with regard to Arab and Palestinian rights, but the lunatic left in the US and Europe persists in seeing the existance of Israel as incompatible with progressive politics.

      by bluestateexile on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 02:51:18 PM PDT

      •  Exactly

        Its like it has become fashionable among some in this country to basically bash Isreal and be anti-semitic

        by loyaldemocrat on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 05:16:21 PM PDT

        •  Hmmm...

          "Its like it has become fashionable among some in this country to basically bash Isreal and be anti-semitic"

          "Bashing Israel" and being "anti-semitic" are two completely different things. Israel's policies encouraging "settlement" on the Palestinan's land are atrocious and imperialist. Nonetheless I will always staunchly defend the right of Israel to exist and prosper. Is this position "anti-semitic" to you?

          by assyrian64 on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 06:43:58 PM PDT

          •  ah, nuance

            That is a relatively nuanced position that ya don't hear as often as you might think on 'the left'.  I think it's sensible and may even be a fairly common position (I'm guessing) among dkossack jews.  

            by SamSinister on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 08:11:05 PM PDT

      •  This is hard to believe:

        but the lunatic left in the US and Europe persists in seeing the existance of Israel as incompatible with progressive politics.

        Perhaps you're being a bit hyperbolic here?
        

        by The Messenger on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 09:06:15 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, I agree w/your comments

      "Being in the Left and sticking up for a Jew can feel like being white in the 40's sticking up for a black guy. Instead of "nigger-lover," you get called "zionlist," which amounts to the same thing."

      You're absolutelly right, I'm a Leftie also and I've corrected people, on my side, for branding me or others on our positions, I always call them on their crap.

      Palestinians have terrorists amongst them and Israel has them too.
      For pointing this out, countless times I've been called "Anti-Semite" or "Pro-Israel-Only" depending on the leaning of my interlocutor.
      (No leftie ever called me "Zionist" (Definitions involved, as you very well know.))

      I  hope you can help me on my quest to understand one of some questions I have RE: The Israel Palestine conflict.  

      How come is OK to criticize Palestine but not Israel? Both sides share the blame in the violence.  Have you experienced branding by both sides?  Or, do you only notice critiques of Israel? I'm asking because your reply doesn't make this aspect clear.  I'm curious, I really am curious to hear your comments on my point and the question.

      And least be left unsaid: I support the right for all people to exist, (I'm a real, raging, bleeding heart liberal)
      I SUPPORT ISRAEL AND PALESTINE TO EXIST INDEPENDENTLY, OR CO-EXIST, AS IT COULD BE THE CASE, they are cousins for Heavens Sake! That's what I always say.

      by Tranny on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 06:17:09 PM PDT

•  agree

  it was all denoument once the answer speakers started. and a PR disaster for the antiwar movement.

  by Miss Devore on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 01:36:48 PM PDT

  •  dunno

    I don't think it was a PR disaster since really all most people will read about this is that 100,000 people showed up, etc.  I don't think people will pay that much attention.

    by salsa0000 on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 03:33:45 PM PDT

    •  well, if I was a wingnut

      news-spinner, I would have selected out the succession of speakers who came out with Palestinian scarves (um--I thought this protest might be about a majority of Americans taking back their country, so to speak)and the one who finished his speech with "from the river to the sea!", which is essentially a call for the elimination of Israel.

      and I'd be the first person to say that Israel has taken a bad direction in trying to appease its extremists, much as our government has done the same.

      but, a mass protest is kind of a  oppo photo-op, and the most publically available images happened to have ended up on C-span. (I am one of those unable to afford whatever elevated cable service is required to see the "other side" of the march.--and since the media is covering almost nothing but hurricane--which is now featuring Delay on the wonderful, orderly evacuation of Texas!-one can only imagine the consequences of all these things meeting)

      by Miss Devore on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 04:25:33 PM PDT

      •  Looks like our fears were unfounded

        Pretty much all the press reports have offered up their typical 'war protest' coverage - in fact most even put a dividing line between the antiwar protester and the anti-globalisation protesters.  Furthermore, in the LA Times piece (it's right on the top of the latimes.com page, so I won't bother digging up the link) they even depicted the protest as consisting of all stripes of people - for example, they quoted a Bush supporter who is against the war as well as someone who opposes the war but doesn't want to withdraw troops all at once right now (which is the closest thing to my opinion of all of them).

        So really the only people who will get riled up are the fringe right (that 35-38% of the electorate that will support Bush to the end) who we will never be able to communicate anything to anyways.

        After reading this thread I was a little nervous, I admit, but it looks like the protest was a success in the eyes of the media.

        by salsa0000 on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 06:46:33 AM PDT

•  On another diary

  someone suggested that Karl Rove was the one who invited ANSWER to be prominent. It certainly made the "Anti-War" demonstration less visual. Too bad.

  by b tex on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 01:36:59 PM PDT

  •  It was the Dems

    by not organizing an anti-war march first. get a permit, line up the speakers you want. Hell. Hillary can have top billing.

    by ben masel on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 02:24:00 PM PDT

    •  Hillary???

      She voted to enable that little freak in the White House to START this filthy war!

      by Kentucky DeanDemocrat on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 02:34:50 PM PDT

      •  Uh. yeah.

        That's kinda my point.

        by ben masel on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 02:38:13 PM PDT

        •  Uh. Okay.

          I re-read your comment and still don't catch the humor?  sarcasm?  But if you mean, presumably, that even the two-faced Hillary would be a better face for the anti-war movement than the anti-Israel nuts, I suppose I agree.

          by Kentucky DeanDemocrat on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 02:53:14 PM PDT

          •  Check the batteries

            in your irony detector.

            by ben masel on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 02:57:25 PM PDT

      •  well

        When she's President, you'll have something to talk about,

        by devtrash on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 07:22:33 PM PDT

    •  Take a 4

      Fucking whining about fucking ANSWER taking the limelight is about as pathetic a fucking statement as I've seen.

      If you don't have the balls and can't even take the fucking trouble to organise a fucking march against a major fucking war criminal government then who in Gods fucking name are you going to expect people to vote for the fucking useless wanking fucking dumbshit party?

      Dems need to Put up or get out of the fucking way

      /rant

      Thank you for your concern, normal tranmission will resume as soon as I throw up my asshole.

      by Deep Dark on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 05:16:21 PM PDT

      •  So now it's "whining"

        to disagree with a group's strategy for an Anti-War rally, and to suggest that they should have done it differently/better/whatever?

        Clearly, you should resume normal transmission even quicker--there's something wrong with the logic chip in the one you're using now. :P

        by br00mhiLdA on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 06:03:33 PM PDT

        •  whining vs fixing

          It's not whining to disagree with their approach, and oreganize the next one yourself. But if you sit back, let them do the next one, with no reason to believe they'll go about it differently (and there isn't) and then repeat the same complaints after the fact, that's whining.

          by ben masel on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 07:19:52 PM PDT

        •  Actually

          there's something wrong with the logic chip in the one you're using now.

           I believe it's your logic chip that is faulty. ANSWER has been organizing anti-war demonstrations since the start of the war. People have been complaining about ANSWER's involvement since the start of the war. I've yet to see any of the people or organizations complaining about ANSWER organizing much of anything (besides PACs to take down anti-war Presidential candidates) themselves. If you want better sponsors why not do the work yourselves? Just think, the polls are overwhelmingly on your side this time so it shouldn't be too scary.

          by colleen on Sat Sep 24, 2005 at 09:04:49 PM PDT

          •  Checkmate!