Jewish Anti-War Protesters Met With Right Wing Hate Groups Claiming to be ProIsrael

These right wing counter protests are now a regular at every big anti war demo. It is time that some organized response is planned. Some of them are connected to facist groups, the responce should be well oganized, disciplined and thought out. With a responce that out numbers them 4 to 1. Good use of a bullhorn and a strong wit, with a prepared text to demolish their arguments and shame them with sarcasm. We would have to be prepared to defend ourselves incase they can't take a few jokes.

So what do others think?

PS Reagan is dead.... at last!

Hyperbole is rife on both sides of the debate. Many on the left have dehumanized Israelis, in their minds turning all pro-Israel Jews into a one dimensional carboard cutout of "right wing, fascist, racists." Reality is never so simple, but this dehumanization (practiced by many on both sides) only leads to the ease of accepting violence being done on other human beings. If only the Left could live up to is own principles I think it may actually gain more adherents and be a real force in American politics. Instead, the Left is dismissed by an overwhelming majority of the constituency it is trying to recruit.

"All of Israel is 'occupied territory'" -- A palestian sign at the Rutgers NJ palestinian hatefest.

You have to go pretty far away from SF to find an argument.

Unless you find calls to "end the occupation" hateful (and think the rally against the occupation in Israel today was also hateful http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/06/1683426.php ), the only groups spouting hate today were the Republican/Evangelical Christians waving Israeli and American flags and carrying signs dehumanizing Arabs.

Even most of the so-called progressive Jews have signs like "Israel-Palestine, Two Peoples, Two States"---- (see photos above)

ISN'T THAT OFFICIAL APARTHEID?????????

How come the "progressive" Jews didn't have signs like that during the anti-apartheid in South Africa movement or even the Civil Rights movement here in the USA?

Why? Because most progressive Jews are completely hypocritical and deceptive. They think that Israel should be subject to a different set of standards and morals.

There should be NO DOUBLE STANDARDS for Jews or Israel.

Zionism will be defeated!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The other side of the "pro-Israel" group besides the straggler right-wing Freepers and old Russians were true Kahanists and other IDF lovers present. Not only were they present, but they migrated to the opposite side (ours) to provoke and instigate masquerading as just ordinary folks. Some of their tactics were just plain obvious and non-effective and for the most part did nothing actually for them. But as someone who has witnessed the reluctance of the divided Left to challenge real fascism when it was skinheads, it was equally disappointing to see not much of an emphasis to confront the zionists. True, there were some folks doing it, but not the folks we needed, aka JVP and even the organizers of the rally, who were suspiciously absent...and actually, where the fuck were the anarchists? Oh, busy grabbing the spotlight.

The problem is the sectarians don't really care about these "smaller" issues and think only in whole, absolute terms...so how the fuck can you understand more complex issues like the religiously overkilled issue as Israel and America's support for it? They just dismiss it and go with a party line, but how the hell do they expect to talk to or undertand our adversaries? GOD! I get so sick of all of the RCP/PLP/WWP/ISO, etc. bullshit frontgroups hijacking the left and the leftist youth and detouring our real revolution for their wacko bizarro dystopias.

I was out there and it seemed like I was the only one who seemed to touch a nerve with the zionists; note: without calling them "nazis" or "racists". I wish I had more folks standing with me. I know behind me were 5000 anti-war folks, but all I could see were cops and zionists.

Here's what I think: the left, for what it is, is still non-confrontational on this issue and think it's too complex to understand or they completely reject it as "identity politics" and somehow think being "working class" or bourgie are the only identities we should care about. That is why they/we continue to be weak on protecting the rights of queers, working class (NON-UNION) folks, and women.

With all of this said:
At least, after studying the civilian opposition of the zionists, we still have a great chance of overcoming the Right and the injustices they wish to continue. It just gets harder and harder to actually see a legit revolutionary movement from the usual suspects and more like seeing a left status quo that is incapable of moving the agenda forward.

These are lies.

I am an anti-war leftist fed up with the anti-semitism in the anti-war movement. I had the sign "pro-israel, pro-palestine, pro-peace." I marched with SF Voice for Israel (NOT with Protest Warriors, who I deplore).

I was there until 3pm. Nobody on our side started shit. There were people from the pro-palestinian side shoving us, coming into our space and shouting "I hope they push you fucking assholes into the sea!"

STOP LYING ABOUT THE PROTEST.

Smash The Jewish State IS RACIST.


I am AGAINST the occupation. But there WERE anti-semetic signs at the protest and that's why SF Voice For Israel exists. MANY people on the SF Voice for Israel side were fellow leftists who feel alienated by the anti-war movement because nobody speaks out against the anti-semitism within.

STOP THE LIES.

How about the sign that WASN'T there but has been acted on???

The one that would have said "Smash the Palestinian state"!!!

That's the one that all Zionists would hold up if they dared to be honest. Not only are Zionists hypocrits, they practice active duplicity.

"OUT" THE ZIONISTS!

You guys are kidding yourselves if you believe that most of the people holding the Israeli flags and American flags and signs against the UN were not Jewish. OF COURSE they were mostly all Jewish Zionists. Jewish Zionists hate the UN. Get educated.

The Zionist counter-protest was organized and fully supported by the local Jewish Federation building on Stuert Street--- we saw two busses outside of the building when we were leaving the rally. One of the busses was Israeli blue and white.

So don't kid yourself that that group was not predominately Jewish Zionists-- not poseurs as you try to assert.

Yes, it's interesting to note that if you ever found a german holding the same political position as a ProtestWarrior, the word for that would be a nazi.
I was talking to this guy from critical mass who makes a big point that he's a conservative and not a liberal like other CMers. He talked about how he was going to France, and maybe he'd try to hook up with other conservatives in Europe. And I didn't get into it with him, but being a conservative in Europe means such a different thing due to their WWII history. You can't blindly take such as position as a casual default thing, because it really means something. Putting up a flag in germany and making affirmations about supporting the troops would signify something entirely different too - not first because everyone has to serve 2 years in the army so they would never get engaged in anything.

"By driving out moderate leftists (by confusing them with rightist), the view of some progressive organizations becomes more and more disconnected with mainstream thought, with the result that even ardent leftists who support Israel end up telling them to take a hike."

It's not just moderate leftists either. As I was taking the trolley home, there were 3 environmentalists with their pro-environment signs sitting just in front of me talking about the protest. And guess what, they were displeased about ANSWERs aim at the protest.

"Who scheduled these events?"
--"ANSWER does, I think they do all of the big ones"
"Well, I really didn't like all the negativity there, I think they're sending a negative message about themslves, you know? They're supposed to be for peace and everything, but they're all anti-this and anti-that, anti-USA and anti-Israel. I just don't think it's a really good message they are sending"

They went on to talk about how they were displeased with Bush regarding the environment (and Kerry as well for being similar to Bush), but they did state a few times over that they wish the rally had a more positive message rather than the negative one, which is the feeling a lot of moderate/mainstream liberals get I think.

It seems like a lot of moderate liberals who are against the war don't feel right going to protests either. Seems that some of their reasons are the fact that they detest flag burning, people who make calls for violence, and the fact that the march isn't really anti-war but has a lot of other calls for far left ideology.

The protest at the end of Market St. was on the whole non-confrontational but earlier about a dozen or so protest warriors and others who had joined them from the proIsrael group tried to get into the middle of the march and block people from marching. They pushed into the crowd right in front of Veterans for Peace and it was about ten minutes before all of the crowd went up on the sidewalk to get around the disruptive counter-protest.

There were two groups of counter-protesters.

One group was the protest warriors who seem to be right wing Republicans (although many had on Arnold t-shirts which is strange since the far right didnt really like him and wanted Simon). The protest warriors had many of the more outrageous signs. You can tell which signs are theirs because they have their website at the bottom and they were professionally printed up.

The other group of counter-protesters came from San Francisco Voice For Israel. About 50% of them had signs that said things like "Israel wants Peace" and "Stop the Hate" but the pictures I posted above are some of the other 50% (there were only about 150 protesters so you can see most of them in the posts on this site) What struck me as troubling about even the more moderate signs was the underlying message of them as a counter-protest to what was primarilly a march against the Iraq war. If some of the counterprotesters were upset about ANSWER's interactions with Rabbi Lerner and other anti-war Jewish leaders that wasn't apparent from the counter-protest; I didn't see one sign that even mentioned opposition to the Iraq war in the counterprotest crowd (there were also no signs against Bush while there were quite a few proBush, antiKerry and antiGreen signs in the crowd)

I'm Jewish (not practicing but more likely to celebrate a random Jewish holliday than a Christian one) and when I was growing up I tended to think of the Jewish community as progressive to radical (even now many of the leaders of Socialist and Communist groups in the Bay Area and even many of the leaders of Palestinian Rights groups in San Francisco and Berkeley are Jewish) In the past year or two the far right has attempted to push a message that the Jewish community is both proIsrael and pro-war. The left is representative of the US public and has its share of paranoids and conspiracy theorists who see the world in blacks and whites and good vs. evil; the result of the counter-protest yesterday was solely to push some of the more crazy types into equating Judaism, Zionism, conservatism, support for war etc.. I have seen very little overt antiSemitism in the Bay Area, but I'm sure it exists and one ocasionally sees some pretty crazy stuff posted to this site (although its usually hidden) The result of a groups actions doesn't always (or even usually) mean that the group's goal was to achieve the results, but the result of these type of protests should be obvious (if I showed up at a Raiders game yelling about how because I'm Jewish and I hate the Raiders, what would the result be?)

I've covered a lot of Palestinian protests in San Francisco and have only rarely seen any antiSemitism at the protests (and never by the organizers) One does see signs equating Zionism with Naziism but hyperbolic statements like that are at least anti-Nazi so its hard to see why it disturbs people so much (especially when aside from the signs in the pictures I posted above there were a lot of signs about killing or opposing "islamofasicsm" by the pro-Israel crowd at the counterprotest. And as you can see above, the counterprotsters even had a big picture of Hitler and a sign saying that ANWER wants to finish Hitler's job...) I can see how some are offended by the ocassional picture of an Israeli flag with a swastika, but the offense is at seeing a swastika not at the message which is anti-Isreal but also anti-Nazi (and a picture of Hitler seems just as offensive if not more offensive). In any case, none of the signs that might bother people are ever on stage or part of the organized protest and at many protests there is even mourning and aknowledgement of innocent Israelis killed in the fighting (see http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/04/1676746.php#1676753 which is from a protest the E Bay Express tried to portray as anti-Semitic for reasons I can't begin to understand unless the writer at the E Bay Express equated opposition to Israeli government policies with anti-Semitism). What is especially troubling about the false accusations of anti-Semitism is the long term effect; it numbs people to the accusations and makes the term less bothersome.

Whenever Israel is criticized the backlash is worse than if any other government were to be criticized. Part of this is that it is "the only Jewish state", but India is the only Hindu state and Iran is the only Shia state and one doesnt hear the same type of criticism when the former governing Hindu nationalist BJP or religious nature of Iran are criticized (and like Israel India has minority groups that engage in bombings and want to seperate off regions). Luckily, unlike Iran or India the ethnic strife in Israel/Palestine is very recent and even Herzl argued for Palestine over other locations for a Jewish homeland because of the tradition of tollerance in the Middle East compared to Europe and other possible locations. While the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is likely to go on for generations (and will be complicated in several decades when Israeli Arabs become a majority in Israel proper due to demographic trends), a solution is not unrealistic. Once Palestinians can live without fear of Israeli troops, have a say in the government rulling over them (be it in one state or two) and have some economic prosperity, hatred will subside. Islamic fundamentalism is driven by the same force that drives the Likud, Israeli hard-liners and Jewish fundamentalists; cultlike behavior results when a community sees itself as being under attack and "ends justify the means" tactics become acceptable against a dehumanized "other".

you must have missed the anwser forming a blockade in front of us stopping us from marching. we didn't block your march. your own people blocked us from marching. get you facts straight before you accuse us of something we didn't do!

ANSWER formed a wall in front of the protest warriors trying to enter the march a few blocks up from Justin Herman Plaza, so they moved back in the march to a clearing in front of Veterans for Peace. As they pushed their way into the crowd both ANSWER organizers and the police surrounded them and the march behind the protest warriors came to a stop. The police tried to keep the two groups seperate and thats what held up the march.

Here is a picture of the protest warriors trying to push into a very crowded portion of the march (the white placards behind the Smite Bush sign and in front of the police line are the ANSWER folk who were blocking the protest warriors from pushing their way into the crowd before the police line formed) and then two pictures of them moving back towards the Veterans for Peace contingent (the top picture in the last set is after the police had the protest warriors surrounded and the Veterans for Pace group was forced to wait almost 10 minutes before they marched up onto the sidewalk to get to around the counter-protesters to Justin Herman Plaza).

They got in front of us and began to raise the ANSWER placards to block our signs, we moved down the street a little and the ANSWER thugs followed us, at which point the police got involved. Then we tried to mix in and march with the protesters, which PW'ers have done elsewhere in the country at such protests, but seething SF leftist geeks would have nothing of it and tried to stop us from marching, saying "you're not invited" and other nonsense. By far I have never come across people who were so intolerant and ignorant of opposing viewpoints in my life.

Actually, here's a photo from therelic3000 at the PW forums:



Shows the ANSWER geeks moving in front of us with the letter placards to block us.

Is it possible to have a calm, rational discussion with screaming provacateurs at their illegal counter-demonstation while the riot-police gather? AZ, if you want to have a dialogue or a debate with these people on the Internet or in an auditorium or other safe setting, I support you. I believe in building bridges and finding common ground. However, Sat. was not the time or the place. My support person told me there were dozens of cops in full riot gear around the corner, and four or five paddy wagons. The whole situation was a set up. I am extremely glad there was no violence and no arrests. We came awfully close. Here's my take on what happened:

My teenaged son and I entered the march in its last block, near Veterans for Peace. I saw the beginning of the counter-demonstration and the arrival of the police, the drawing up of sides and the various screaming matches. Jewish Voice for Peace stood behind the pro-Palistinian group, on the other side of the walkway, at least for a while [I did not continue to observe them.]

As a clownarchist, my first job was to lead people with small children and babies away from the trouble. Kids don't need that kind of hostility and potential violence. I can't understand the parents who pushed strollers towards the sounds of trouble instead of away. War and violence are harmful to children and babies--but I digress. Next, I shamelessly eavesdropped on a cop and an ANSWER monitor/organizer. You could spot the monitors by their wonderfully clownish chartreuse vests. The cop wanted more monitors to cover "four hot spots" at the counter demonstration and the organizer said he didn't have any to spare. The cop felt things could become violent if the verbal confrontations weren't broken up.

Clownarchists diffuse tension nonviolently. It's really hard to maintain your anger when conversing with a clown! The angry young men I "talked down" were mostly anti war activists who were losing their tempers but not becoming violent. I was able to convince them all to leave the frontlines. Some apologized for losing their tempers. One became depressed and said he had now lost his faith in anti-war activism. One very young man, about 14 yrs. old, was there for a lark with his friend, shouting obscenities and provoking people for fun. He didn't realize he was endangering himself and others. I wondered if this was his first time out in the City without an adult. His buddy, my teenage son and I were able to talk him away from the frontlines.

I don't believe the four or five men I talked down were agents provocateurs. However, there may have been agents provocateurs elsewhere in the crowd. The counter-protestors' body language and facial expressions were very aggressive. I believe they were there specifically to confront the Palistinian people and their allies, and hoped to provoke a violent outburst. Too bad they were disappointed.

ANSWER has been criticized as racist because it is against the racist persecution of the Palistinian people. That's like saying the Freedom Riders were racists. I refuse to let this specious argument distract me from working for peace. If the counter-protestors who claim to be for peace really mean it, they can organize their own peace events and stop trying to create police riots.

Er ... the demonstration was, er, ANTI-war and ANTI-occupation, and, er, ANTI-torture. What, *exactly* is wrong with that. And did anyone force your friends to come on the march? And did anyone force them to agree with what was being said? And weren't there speakers who were nothing to do with ANSWER. So WHAT, *exactly* is your point???

Your upset you couldnt push your way into the middle of a march by groups you hate and feel that by not allowing you to do so people violated your free speech?

The one good thing about having all the freepers show up is that by looking through these photos maybe the creep who beat up Lori Haigh and shut down the Capobianco Gallery ( http://www.indybay.org/archives/archive_by_id.php?id=2156&category_id=34 ) can be IDd. Im sure its not anyone who the protest warrior oragnizers know (or they couldnt have posted their own pics of the protest to the site) but chances are that any crazed right winger who felt like they needed to assualt someone for having an antiwar event at an SF gallery would probably also find it fun to try to start a fight at an antiwar protest. Between the video and photos on this site Im sure whoever assualted her can be identified at put behind bars.

Just to clarify the scene:

TWO different groups were present; SF Voice for Israel and Protest Warrior. Some in SFVFI agree with the Protest Warriors, some don't. They chose to stand with us. That's freedom of speech for you. (oh right--forgot that in North Korea and in Ramallah that sort of thing isn't acceptable-- my bad).

Of course, reading a hidden purpose into very clear language should come easy for those who call for "peace" and oppose "terrorism" (except when hostilities and terror attacks are directed against Jews...or did I miss the signs that condemned the point-blank shooting of little girls in their car seats a few weeks ago in Gaza? oh right, they DESERVED it)

and, as far as this quote...
"A secondary purpose could perhaps be to provoke a response by leftists and perhaps slowly build up antiSemitism so it can be used as a rallying cry to get Jewish Americans to vote Republican"

are you then ADMITTING the anti-Semitism that has clearly shown its face on the extreme left? Is it just that us Zionists can't help but provoke anti-Semitism by the mere act of standing up for Israel? Or is it that the anti-Semites among you hide behind the more PC cloak of anti-Zionism? Inquiring minds want to know.

Yes, no need to go so far away from San Francisco. What about "Smash the Jewish state" signs?

To sau "Smash the Jewish state" is not racist. It is anti-racist for the same reason it is anti-racist to say "Smash the Aryan state." Any state based on ethnicity is racist. To *not* call for it to be smashed is racist.

A racist is a racist is a racist. Which race doesn't matter. Zionism is racism for precisely the same reason, and in precisely the same way, that Nazism is racist. Smash them both.

Some of the proIsrael group (non protest warriors) had signs calling for the expulsion of Arab Israelis. Within a few months a sign like that will be illegal at protests in Israel since even many center-right Israelis acknowledge that calling for the expulsion of an ethnic group constitutes ethnic cleansing. In the US freedom of speech won't allow such signs to be banned but I would guess/hope that any sign calling for the expulsion of Jews from any country would quickly be pushed out of an antiwar protest.

I didn't see a single "Smash Israel" sign at the anti-war protest. I saw a lot of "stop the occupation" and "free palestine" signs but not a single one that said anything that would even border on anti-Semitism. Perhaps some signs existed since there were thousands of people and there are always wingnuts (like that guy who dresses like uncle sam who have been kicked out of groups for general craziness).

One could dismiss the crazy racist signs carried by the proIsrael protesters as also lunatic fringe stuff but it was a large percentage of the total signs and nobody seemed bothered by the messages.

Also, most of the proIsrael corwd smiled or laughed at the far right signs of the Protest Warriors. They cant wholly be dismissed as crazies (although some members are) since a lot of what they do is run by Karl Rove indirectly. There is no depth to which Rove will sink with his dirty tricks to get a few extra votes. If he finds it useful to create an atmosphere of hostility between anti-war protesters and Jewish community groups and then use this to pull a few more Jewish votes for Bush, the side effects dont really matter. The Arnold t-shirts worn by many of the Protest Warriors suggest that partisan interest rather than ideology is behind these recent Republican dirty-trick tactics; any Republican who felt strongly about their beliefs opposed Arnold as a RINO (Republican in Name Only) and the only gung ho Arnold supporters I can think of who would also feel strongly enough about politics to take the time to go disrupt an anti-war protest would be those either directly or indirectly working for the party.

There probably were some proIsrael peace protesters in the counter protest crowd who were tricked by someone to think that ANSWER is antiSemitic (rather than just a little internally authoritarian and closely tied to groups that supported the USSR longer than most Trotskyists) But if you follow the tracks of who that someone is you will find the track leads eventually to Karl Rove.

Interesting discussion. First off, I can assure you that neither the Jewish Federation, the Jewish Community Resource Council, nor any other corporate entity had anything to do with the SF Voice For Israel rally in Saturday. It was strictly a grass roots effort by a group that operates much like a non-hierarchical collective.

Karl Rove has never even heard of us. Well, maybe now he has.

On our side, we had signs promoting peace, labor, gay rights, women's rights and coexistence. On the ohter side, there were signs supporting the destruction of Israel (this is explicitly endorsed by ANSWER) and the killing of Americans, and nothing about the plight of women, gays, labor, or religious/ethnic minorities in the Arab world, including the Palestinian Authority controlled areas.

SF Voice for Israel takes no position on the war in Iraq, and signs about the conflict in Iraq would be inappropriate as it has nothing to do with Israel.

Police kept the two groups seperate, not by any request of our group, and I assume also from ANSWER, but to prevent violence from breaking out. They were just as harsh at keeping us "behind our line" as they were with the ANSWER people.

"destruction of Israel (this is explicitly endorsed by ANSWER) and the killing of Americans"

ANSWER has speakers calling for the end to the occupation. Show me an example of them calling for these things you accuse them of. Aside from the protest warriors (who may be getting part of Bush's campaign money) the other counter-protesters obviously dont feel they are pawns of Rove, but try to root out where the myths about the anti-war movement are comming from and many have been strategically placed articles that most likely did come from the Bush campaign (ideas dont come out of the blue and many myths are deliberately started or added to by political operatives trying to take advantage of gullible folk).

Ok, first of all I was not at the protest/counter-protest but want to voice my opinion. I used to be very involved in bay area activism, some of you may even know me. But, since 9-11 I have been extremely dismayed by the level of anti-Semitism on the Bay area extreme left. It's turned me off to such a degree that I rarely go to protests or get involved. I feel marginalized from a movement that I spent years trying to develop and see flourish. Despite my "Zionist sympathies" I am still on speaking terms with my former anarcho-lefty comrades, but am out of the movement. I appreciate their honesty--we often disagree--and above all, their friendship.

I recently returned from Israel and was in contact with numerous groups struggling for social change--getting "unrecognized" Palestinan villages and towns legal status so the bulldozers won't knock down their homes, the African Workers Union in Tel Aviv fighting for labor rights and the struggle of all undocumented workers, the Open House in Jerusalem that deals with LGBT concerns, educators in a low-income community using the pedagogical methods of Paolo Freire and many, many, beautiful people who share my vision of social change. This is the Israel I know. It has its share of problems--far too many--but when you demonize an entire people, the Jewish people, my people, I can not stand by and pretend like everything is all good.

I feel similarly about the USA because I am an American. Bush sucks, Kerry sucks, the government sucks, capitalism sucks, the nation state system sucks, but there are some damn fine folks in this country and I am glad I live here.

Shalom
Salaam
PEACE...

OK, flame away...

not only were there 'smash the Jewish state' signs, there were also signs saying 'support armed resistance in Iraq and Palestine' signs making comparisons between Israel, the US and Nazi Germany, the usual Bush/Hitler nonsense, 9/11 conspiracy bullshiat and Arab protesters with Palestinian signs giving us the slitting throat gesture. Typical.

Contrary to what I heard one ANSWER socialist claiming on NPR or Pacifica, these gatherings are getting more crazed and wacky, because as leftists become less and less successful in getting a coherant and convincing message out to mainstream they become more and more bitter, and move further to the left alienating yet more. The 'black bloc' group looked like it was at least as large as the rest, and the socialists and anarchists seemed to be a lot more visible. 9/11 conspiracy morons were out in force. I was not as satisfied with the conversations I had as I've been in the past, but that might have something to do with the fact that I let this chick talk my ear off about holistic and natural ways of regarding other peoples opinions for like an hour.

nessie, there may be a pic of those signs in <a href="http://forum.protestwarrior.com/viewtopic.php?t=20456&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45" target=_new>this thread (provided indybay.org doesn't childishly redirect protestwarrior.com links to someplace else), but the point is that those signs were there, whether you believe it or not, and that is what bystanders and the media are going to catch.

Israel is surrounded by a people that have tried to destroy her numerous times, and who use such disgusting tactics as indoctrinating children to hate and blow up buses inside Israel and the stated goal (Phased Plan) of overcoming Israel through immigration and high birthrates, but in the end Arabs can still immigrate to Israel and become successful and there is Arab representation in their government. Israel is a democracy, which is a stark contrast from all of her neighbors and any Arab nation you could mention. If you want to look at positively racist immigration policy, not to mention racist and sexist legal systems and governments, well I don't think I should have to tell you where to look.

follow that link you just posted and you will notice that there are no signs remotely similar to what you are talking about.

look on the right side of the photo. But again, it really isn't the point that people on this website are convinced that such sentiment was there, people who were there saw it and apparently the same issue was present on Sunday at the Israel Celebration Day at Pac Bell park. People on the left are becoming more and more fractured on Israel as some of them move further toward radicalism on this issue to the point of simply not trusting Jews, similar to the movement among Marxists in Germany and Russia in the late 19th early 20th century who saw the Jews as being behind "economic injustice" and contributing to the xenophobia that led to Nazism. The rhetoric about the Jewish lobby and undue influence in the government is exactly the same as it was back then, and leftists' complete disregard today for actual ethnic cleansing, racism, gender apartheid and even slavery in the world to bitch non-stop about Israel goes well beyond hypocrisy.

Eastbaywatch wrote:

"these gatherings are getting more crazed and wacky, because as leftists become less and less successful in getting a coherant and convincing message out to mainstream they become more and more bitter, and move further to the left alienating yet more"

I think you are to something. The (hard) left is extremely marginalized in this country and they are clinging to whoever they think will support them in their rallies and demonstrations. When I was active in left politics/direct action, no one on the left would associate with holocaust deniers and anti-Semitic conspracy peddlers like the kinds of people who regularly post to the imcs. This is alarming to me and is one of the reasons I will no longer associate with these erstwhile "leftists".

And to "liar liar", I just returned from Israel and can tell you that Israel is none of the things you mentioned. But, you probably don't even care about what's going on there anyway...

"look on the right side of the photo."
you mean left side of the photo?

Yeah that could be interpreted in a way that is in opposition to all Israelis (or it could be interpreted as more similar to a "Smash the State" or just opposition to the current government) Just as the signs saying "Kill Islamofascists" carried by many of the Voice for Israel crowd could either be interpreted as a call to kill Muslisms (with the fascist portion being intended to equate a religion with fascism), a call to kill Fascist Muslims, or a call to end fascism among muslims. Thats the program with one line slogans.

Everyone likes to read the worst into the slogans of groups they disgaree with; does the slogan "free palestine" mean a call for a single multiethnic state, is it a call to push jews into the sea or is it just a slogan reflecting a desire to free people living in the oppressive conditions found in the West Bank and Gaza? Were signs about "Arab terrorists" carried by Israeli groups that claimed they were for peace equating arabs with terrorists? There were quite a few signs also mentioning problems (like gay rights and women's rights) in the Arab world; for those carrying the signs it was a statement for gay rights or women's rights but many seeing the signs saw it as dehumanization of Arabs with no real care to change the conditions (more of "see what these subhumans do" than "we need to improve conditions in Arab countries") Even signs like "Israel wants peace" come acrosss badly to the people who read them. In Israel a sign like that would be a protest sign against Sharon (or these days at least against those supporting settlements in Gaza), but when held in opposition to an antiwar or Palestine protest the signs seems to mean that Isreal's current actions are justified because they are being done for security reasons which people equate with peace. The weird part is that everyone reads what they want into slogans and they could mean something very different; perhaps the "Israel wants pace" signs mean that the peopel carrying them were Israelis opposed to the US war in Iraq .

Its was strange to see signs about beheadings when Berg's father spoke at an ANSWER demo in DC Saturday denouncing Bush for the death and destruction caused by the war. To me a sign saying "Stop the beheadings" looks like an example of hatred towards Iraqis or Arabs (and carries the underlying message that "those people do subhuman things") since obviously nobody in the antiwar crowd was involved in beheadings. For the person carrying the sign, I'm sure it had some sort of other meaning, and perhaps the right-wingers posting to this site can explain what the meaning of signs like this (some signs had obvious meanings like the "go blow yourself" sign seemed to just be an expression of hatred towards anti-war protesters in general).

FLA: "The (hard) left is extremely marginalized in this country and they are clinging to whoever they think will support them in their rallies and demonstrations. When I was active in left politics/direct action, no one on the left would associate with holocaust deniers and anti-Semitic conspracy peddlers like the kinds of people who regularly post to the imcs."

The problem is that -- judging from some of the participants here -- the progressive left's response to their growing division from the Jewish population seems to be, "let's be even _more_ anti-Israel, let's be even _more_ tolerant of antisemitic expression within our ranks, and if Jewish folks don't like it, it's their fault, not ours."

It's just awfully hard to see that as a strategy for success.

@%<

I marched both with the main anti-war protest and then stood with SF Voice for Israel (NOT with Protest Warriors, whom I deplore). My sign said "Pro-Israel, Pro-Palestine, Pro-Peace" - you may have seen me.

Nessie, you are spreading lies. The "Smash the Jewish State" sign was there and many, many people on both sides saw it, along with signs of the Israeli flag with a swastika in the middle, "Support Armed Resistance in Iraq and Palestine" (which translates to "Kill civillians"), "Kill a Colonialist", and other hateful, violent, non-peaceful signs.

On the other hand, there were NO anti-Arab signs with SF Voice for Israel. The closest that I saw was "Stop Arab Terrorism" which is not anymore racist than "Stop Israeli Terrorism" which I saw on the other side. There were one or two signs with Protest Warriors claiming the West Bank and Gaza are "Arab-occupied land" and I deplore signs like that. Again, however, it's important to realize that Protest Warrior and SF Voice for Israel are two seperate organizations. Most of the SF Voice for Israel signs had a distinct leftist bent to them, as they supported gay rights, women's rights, Palestinian rights ("Free Palestine from Arafat"), and the like.

A.N.S.W.E.R. is an anti-Semetic organization in that it allows anti-Semetic protesters in it's ranks and does not speak out against them in any way, shape, or form, and in that it focuses solely on the atrocities committed by the Israeli goverment and military while ignoring all other unjust occupation and repression in the world. I am strongly against the war in Iraq but I cannot give support to A.N.S.W.E.R. since they have hijacked the anti-war movement and destroyed anti-war solidarity to unfairly single out Israel among all other nations.

I don't really disagree with much of what you say, political slogans leave a lot of room for interpretation and as you point out a lot of the signs displayed by Protest Warriors and the SF Voice for Israel people can be interpreted to make very legitimate statements, for example 'death to Islamofascists' can easily be considered a call to wipe out jihadis, or militant fundamentalist Muslims and 'Israel wants peace' as Israel seeking peace through security (in fact there were signs that said 'peace through security'). I think you may have a bit harder time convincing me that 'smash the Jewish state' or 'expose the 9/11 coverup' or 'Bush and Sharon, Hitler's best students' have a legitimate message to express, but overall I don't disagree with your point.

I think what a lot of the PW'ers and SFVfI people are trying to point out is the overt hypocrisy of leftists who are so rabidly anti-Israel, using terminology (ethnic cleansing, apartheid) that totally doesn't belong in the debate, while actual ethnic cleansing and slavery (Nigeria, Sudan), gender apartheid and racist laws and governance (many Arab nations), and massive and brutal campaigns against civilians (100,000 dead in Algeria in the past decade) exist almost everywhere *else* you look.

Gehrig writes, "The problem is that -- judging from some of the participants here -- the progressive left's response to their growing division from the Jewish population seems to be, "let's be even _more_ anti-Israel, let's be even _more_ tolerant of antisemitic expression within our ranks, and if Jewish folks don't like it, it's their fault, not ours."

That is certainly one of the main reasons I dropped out of left activism.

The West Bank and Gaza are places where the population has no say in the government that rules over them. Its worse than other nondemocratic Middle Eastern countries in that the entire population is treated like a security threat, forced to live under curfews etc.. The status quo does look similar to aparthied South Africa.

The strange part about any debate over Palestinians in Israel is that the course of the debate goes the same.
1. proPalestinians call for the end to the occupation
2. right wing Israelis respond with accusations of Palestinian terrorism
3. a debate ensues on who is to blame and charges of racism and antiSemitism appear from both sides (with both sides using weird lingustic arguments and trying to use ancient history to justify events today)
4. both sides agree they may have gone to far
5. an attempt is made to make peace between those arguing for Palestinian freedom and the rightwing supporters of Israel with the freedom of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza left out of the picture
6. the cycle starts over

Palestinian suicide bombings cant be used as an excuse for a decades old occupation that denies Palestinians fundamental rights.

If during the 1980s you ever argued with Republicans who supported aparthied in S Africa you would hear the same rhetoric; maybe aparthied should end but first crime by blacks has to be dealt with, and communist sympathies by the ANC have to be dealt with, and the 1980s equivalent of the protest warriors would show up at Free South Africa rallies with tires around them claiming that anyone who opposes aparthied supports necklacing (maps showing Africa and asking why whites only get such a small portion of it were also passed around similar to the ones protest warriors passed around at the protests last weekend and one even heard arguments denying the existance of blacks in Southern S Africa before colonization). There are differences between S Africa and Palestine but the arguments of the right-wingers are amazingly similar ("look at horrors in other African countries", "by talking about aparthied your ignoring Uganda and Idi Amin", "by supporting the ANC your supporting terrorism or communism"). Luckily aparthied ended and none of the horrors came to pass.

Perhaps 5 years ago an argument could be made that actions by the Palestinians (meaning the PA) could take place at the same time as Israeli actions, but the PA has been destroyed by the Israeli military and has little power anymore. With no group allowed to weild political power Hamas has stepped in via its social and religious networks and gained in power. Arafat may be corrupt and have done bad things in the past but for people to denounce him and then ask why Hamas is so powerful is hypocritical. Even stranger is the equation of a one state solution with genocide when a two state solution is being undermined by settlements in the West Bank that Bush and Sharon now say will be permenent. Two states wont be possible if the West Bank is carved up into issolated population centers seperated by access roads guarded by Israeli troops. Settlements are a long term change whereas even the worst crimes that Israel accuses the Palestinians are do not change the facts on the ground. If the Israeli idea of a two state solution is a strong Israel surrounding issolated pockets of Palestinians who are not allowed "full soverignty" that goal would look a lot like South African aparthied's proposed solution for that country. Any real solution must mean that every Israeli and Palestinian lives in a country that has full soverignty and respects minority religions and has a healthy economy etc... Its possible that such a solution could mean two states but thats becoming less and less likely as new settlements get built and the secular power structures in the West Bank are destoryed giving more power to the fundamentalists.

Most discussion on here would result in a reply to this post pointing out how the Palestinians were responsible for rejecting Israel's proposal for two states under Barak. Even if you believe that, it took both parties to walk away and even if you believe Israel "had no partner for peace" how would that justify new settlements that now make it so no Palestinian leader will ever be able to come to the table and agree to what Barak had proposed? When Albright spoke in Berkeley recently and was asked about talks at camp David, she blamed Barak for bungling the peace offer (not because of its contents but due to bungled diplomacy and bad timing) But does that even matter. If you support two states, what justifies settlements and access roads?

The entire world stands solidly against Israel's occupation, extrajudicial assasinations and bulldozing of the houses of relatives of suicide bombers (blaming innocent peopel for the actions of relatives). The concensus that Israel is the party at fault has nothing to do with antiSemitism. The growing antiSemitism in Europe and the US is a direct result of the proIsrael rallies held by Israel supporters in Europe and the US. Its a result of rallies that equate Judaism with support for occupation, its the result of putting up with racist signs (like those seen Saturday calling for Arabs to be kicked out of Israel), and its the result of making support for Israel appear to be an offshoot of the far right (its not just the protest warriors, its the waving of US flags and looking similar to proWar rallies, its the smearing of groups like ANSWER with false accusations, and in Europe its the increased ties between right-wing Jewish communities and the neofascists who oppose Muslim immigration into Europe) Of course the actions of a few crazies shouldnt logically cause antiSemitism but it's a mirror reflection of how the actions of a few crazies make counter-protesters believe that ANSWER is antiSemitic because of one or two signs seen in the crowds at ANSWER protests. Do people seriously see ANSWER as antiSemetic for letting there be one sign saying "Smash Israel" in a crowd of 5000? Looking at the counterprotest its hard to find one picture of the crowd that doesnt contain some offensive sign whereas most at the ANSWER march had peace symbols, anti-Bush slogans and didnt even mention Palestine. A few former leftists have bordered on antiSemitism as a reaction to extremist statements at rallies organized by proIsrael groups, but the psychology of these individuals is identical to that of former progressives who now hate groups like ANSWER because of having seen a sign in the middle of a crowd of thousands they find offensive. Many antiZionists seriously believe that all supporters of Israel want to push all nonJews out of Israel proper, the West bank and Gaza and create a larger Jewish state that is ethnically pure (to many antiZionists anyone who defends any aspect of Israel must secretly be a supporter of Kahane and the JDL). Many supporters of Israel seriously believe that many antiwar protesters want to push the Jews into the sea and establish an Islamic fundamentalist state in what is now Israel, Gaza and the West Bank (to many of them, anyone calling for Palestinian freedom wants to kill all Jews in Israel; there were at least two signs by nonprotest warriors at the protest Saturday directly saying this). Its doubtful that there is anyone in either group who wants the extreme goals attributed to them by those they disagree with, but its these underlying assumptions that prevents any real dialogue.

Of course dialogue between supporters of Israel and supporters of Palestinians doesnt make the occupation or suicide bombings any closer to ending (extreme elements will always exist in any population), which is part of the reason why there are so few people on either side who will take the effort to dialogue. The result is flame wars where people say hyperbolic things back and forth to each other as if the verbal fight (similar to taunting one hears at a football game) will have some effect other than just creating more hostility and anger. People smile at extreme signs that attack their "enemies" for the same reason Berkeley sports fans smile at pictures of a Berkeley bear shitting on or sexually assaulting a Stanford tree (there seems to be some very primitive instinct tied to demonizing and calling for horrible actions against a rival even if its just fans of an opposing college sports team, fans of a different genre of music or people with different views on a country half way around the world)