June 2002

Views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily of the AFSC.

Letters to Peacework on
Israel-Palestine

Robert Pierson, Watertown, MA
I would like to add my voice to the array of Middle East perspectives. In your May issue of Peacework, Ramzi Kysia, in his article "Toward a Nonviolent Resistance in Palestine" writes that "Israel is an arrogant, racist, vicious state, and Israel must be humbled." I wonder if the author considers it a paradox that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East; a country where the Arab-Israeli minority has representation in government? I am against occupation, though I appreciate the complexities of the situation. I understand better the difficult decisions Israel needs to face since reading a study called "Muslim Anti-Semitism: A Clear and Present Danger" presented by the American Jewish Committee <www.ajc.org>

I recommend that it be read. It would offer a greater diversity of perspectives than appear in your May issue, thus, I believe, contributing to the level playing field you express much value for, in "From the editor's desk."

Stella Penzer, Newton, MA
I will boycott Israeli goods when you will boycott suicide bombing. Your ad for hating Israel is not worthy of being run by Peacework [May 2002, p. 12]. It is a hate ad. I fully support the other conciliatory ads you are running. I deeply cry over the Israeli-Palestinian tragedy: Arabs and Jews shedding young lives over a minuscule strip of land! Tri-lingual cantons of the Swiss live in peace. Why not Arabs and Israelis?

From the Eds.: Peacework does not accept paid advertisements. The item referred to was a notice appearing in a resource list.

Stansfield Smith, Chicago
The article in your May issue on the April 20 demonstration, "A20 in Washington--Lessons for Organizers," by David McReynolds was rather mean-spirited and jealous. That the AFSC chooses to identify with it is not a good omen.

There had been a division in the April 20 organizing coalitions over the issue of Palestine. Quite clearly those who opposed making the brutal treatment of Palestinians a central focus of the march missed the boat. The overwhelming majority of the demonstrators identified with Palestine and opposed the Israeli occupation and massacre in Jenin going on at the time. McReynolds evidently was not one of them. The ANSWER coalition was instrumental in organizing most of the turnout for April 20, doing much better work than the other April 20th coalition McReynolds identifies with. Thus the origin of his jealous spite towards ANSWER. So, instead of praising ANSWER for their excellent work in building April 20, he attacks them as a Workers World front. Yet it is absurd that a little party like Workers World could bring out the majority of the 100,000 people April 20. And that is not an exaggerated Workers World figure like McReynolds claims, but the figure most groups give of the march's size.

Evidently McReynolds thinks a national anti-war demonstration and movement can be built while ignoring the major war the US was involved in at the time--its support for Israeli aggression. Should we not raise the issue of Israeli aggression because some Jews would be angry? Then why organize any anti-war demonstration in Washington, as even more Americans would be angry?

As for Peacework, why do you publish an article on April 20 attacking one of the groups that helped bring out so many people? People who went say the ANSWER march brought out over twice as many people as the original April 20 coalition did. In the end they merged together. April 20 created the opportunity to mend fences and build bridges with other anti-war groups, and ANSWER was a major player. Printing that article by McReynolds, ironically titled, "Lessons for Organizers," did the opposite.

David McReynolds replies:
Stansfield Smith chides me for discussing some movement problems. It seems to me that in his effort to promote unity he is helping underline the problems I discussed. He refers to "those who opposed making the brutal treatment of Palestinians a central focus of the march." The April 20th organizers had no intention of excluding speakers from that viewpoint, but the original concept of the March was set in motion months before the Israel attack on Jenin, and the coalition was brought together on a much broader basis.

It is surely knocking down a straw man to suggest that I don't personally care deeply about issues such as the Israeli Occupation. Why else do I take part in demonstrations not only in Washington but here in New York against the Occupation? I find myself called an anti-Semite by the supporters of Sharon, and now find I am attacked for being indifferent to that Occupation. We do need to discuss some of the problems and tensions that existed between ANSWER and Workers World on the one hand, and the broad range of groups that organized April 20th on the other. I fear Stansfield Smith's letter only makes the need for that discussion clearer.

Previous Article    Next Article