<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Thursday, February 12, 2004

Open Letter 

Over objections (including mine), NLG national has signed on to this open letter. I think it's reactionary and divisive. There's so much here that needs work. Why are we taking sides in an issue that is half a world away? We're the National Lawyer's Guild. And this letter all but calls me a racist, which I have issues with. Until there is a change in leadership on both sides of that conflict, you won't see me taking sides. Both sides are SO WRONG about SO MUCH (even if both sides are right about a few things as well). Why can't we all just get along? Because the rhetoric on both sides precludes real compromise, and its a damn shame. I support peace and reconciliation. Neither Fatah nor Likud do. Until there is change, why can't organizations like NLG just focus on domestic issues? You know, the ones over which we have some modicum of control and influence.

But I don't completely agree with any organization of which I am a member, that's the name of the game. And where NLG is concerned, the good far outweighs the bad (especially since the bad is signing letters and the good is actually doing something).

Oh, and I can't help but feel some uneasiness about ANSWER. That organization is reactionary in an unproductive way, and it's coloring the peace movement in this country as something it is not (for most participants). I think that's a shame. I want to march in March (hell, it's on my birthday) and I will. But I don't like that I am doing it under the auspices of an organization that has been hijacked by reactionary voices. I don't have a problem with radicals or hard-line leftists. Some might consider me some combination of those things (though I would disagree to some extent). But where are the Dr. Kings of our day? Where are the coalition builders who give a messge of hope, rather than one of antagonism? Give me a leader I can follow without questioning the motives behind the movement!

|

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?