Michael Lerner

Here's how White nationalism can be uprooted in America

Holocaust Memorial commemorations around the world began May 1 but are likely to continue through this coming weekend, while Jews and our allies grieve the murder and wounding of Jews at the Poway synagogue in Southern California this past Saturday. I hear more and more young people suggest that something akin to the Holocaust might actually happen again, this time here in the United States.

Keep reading... Show less

Racism and Israel's election: How did the Jewish state become an oppressive state?

Israel’s election on Tuesday came down to a battle between a prime minister who promised to annex part (or possibly all) of the West Bank and its several million Palestinians into Israel, but without giving them equal rights to Jews, and a former army general and chief of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) who boasted about how many Palestinians he had killed, or had his army kill, in past invasions into Gaza.

Keep reading... Show less

GOP’s Secret Weapon: How Right-Wing Churches Turn the 99 Percent Into the Tea Party

Why does the Right keep winning in American politics, sometimes through electoral victories, sometimes by having the Democrats and others on the Left adopt what were traditionally right-wing policies and perspectives? Sure, I know that progressives won some important local battles in 2014: A few towns in California, Texas, and Ohio banned fracking. A few towns in Ohio, Massachusetts, Florida, and Illinois supported ballot measures to overturn Citizens United. Richmond, California, stood up to Chevron, and Berkeley stood up to “Big Soda.”

Keep reading... Show less

Mourning for a Judaism Being Murdered by Israel

My heart is broken as I witness the suffering of the Palestinian people and the seeming indifference of Israelis. Tonight (August 4) and tomorrow (August 5), which mark Tisha B’av,the Jewish commemoration of disasters that happened to us through Jewish history, I’m going to be fasting and mourning also for a Judaism being murdered by Israel. No matter who gets blamed for the breakdowns in the cease-fire or for “starting” this latest iteration of a struggle that is at least 140 years old, one of the primary victims of the war between Israel and Hamas is the compassionate and love-oriented Judaism that has held together for several thousand years. Even as Israel withdraws its troops from Gaza, leaving behind immense devastation, over 1,800 dead Gazans, and over four thousand wounded, without adequate medical supplies because of Israel’s continuing blockade, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu refuses to negotiate a cease-fire. He is fearful that he would be seen as “weak” if Israel gave way to Gazans’ demand for an end to the blockade and the freedom of thousands of Palestinian prisoners kidnapped and held in Israeli jails in violation of their human rights.

Keep reading... Show less

Chomsky: Wealthiest 1% Rule Our Politics -- But There's Hope in the Fight Against Global Capital

To read more pieces like this, sign up for Tikkun's free newsletter or visit us online. You can also keep up with Tikkun on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Keep reading... Show less

Liberals and Progressives Never Miss an Opportunity to Miss an Opportunity... Are We Ready to Change Directions?

Progressives have had four enormous opportunities in the past two years to change the fundamentals of American society and our relationship to the world. We’ve already blown the first and are missing the second, third, and fourth.

Keep reading... Show less

Should Progressives Give Up on Obama? Chris Hedges vs. Rabbi Lerner

Editor's Note: TruthDig's Chris Hedges argues below that the illegal wars and occupations, the largest transference of wealth upward in American history and the egregious assault on civil liberties, all of which begun under George W. Bush, have largely continued under Obama and the Democratic majorities in Congress, raising only a flicker of tepid protest from liberals. Published below is Tikkun's Rabbi Michael Lerner's response to Hedges.

Keep reading... Show less

Middle East Violence: Neocons' Fantasy

The champions of American global empire are using the latest upsurge of violence in the Middle East to give new life to their discredited plan to extend the war in Iraq to Syria and Iran. The neo-con Weekly Standard has taken the lead in its July 24th cover issue, proclaiming that the current violence is "Iran's Proxy War" against the West.

As Standard editor William Kristol puts it, "It's our war." America's, that is.

"What's under attack," Kristol argues "is liberal democratic civilization, whose leading representative right now happens to be the United States." The logical conclusion of this "war of civilizations" analysis is Kristol's advice to the Bush Administration: "our focus should be less on Hamas and Hezbollah, and more on their paymasters and real commanders -- Syria and Iran. And our focus should be not only on the regional war in the Middle East, but also on the global struggle against radical Islamism."

Progressives have no sympathy for radical Islamism, if that means those who have systematically denied the rights of women and gays, imprisoned those insisting on human rights and civil liberties, and sponsored campaigns of terror against civilians in Israel, Egypt, Jordan, India, Bali, Spain, England or anyplace else in the world.

But even many who might have forgotten the lesson before the Iraq war today rally around the cry to "Bring the troops home" rather than the neo-con appeal to extend the war into other nations. Most of us have come to the conclusion that violence is not the solution to our problems.

Which is why many of us have been sickened and saddened by the recent escalation of the struggle after Israel decided to use the capture of one of its soldiers by Hamas an an excuse to reenter Gaza and destroy its pathetic infrastructure. This punitive measure left one million of the world's poorest people, living in the world's most densely populated area, without electricity -- i.e., without refrigeration or water -- and can only be construed as an act of collective punishment for the deeds of a small group of people (the elected Hamas government which actually made a public plea for the release of the prisoner, though that did not prevent Israel from moving in and arresting a significant portion of the Hamas elected leadership).

Perhaps seeing the moment as one requiring solidarity, or perhaps instigated by its patrons in Syria and Iran, Hezbollah broke its previous pledge to respect the Israeli border, crossed it, killed a group of Israeli soldiers and captured two. In turn, Israel again resorted to collective punishment, holding much of the Lebanese civilian population responsible, bombing the civilian airport and many other civilian installations, and surprisingly finding that Hezbollah was able to respond with a barrage of missiles which killed and wounded Israelis in several northern cities.

It's ludicrous to try to establish "blame" in the sense of who did what first. Incidents of violence on the part of Palestinians and their allies cannot be separated from the constant violence of the Occupation, the continual kidnapping by the IDF of Palestinian civilians who are held in prison camps without charges or trial for as long as six months, often enduring torture as documented by the Israeli Human Rights Organization B'Tselem.

Nor can the violence of the Occupation be separated from the misguided policies of many Palestinians who have never been willing to unequivocally acknowledge the legitimacy and right of the Jewish people to the same kind of national self-determination in the land of Palestine that Palestinians rightly demand for themselves; nor from the equally misguided fantasy that peace and prosperity will come from violence rather than from the non-violent strategies used by Gandhi, MLK Jr., and Mandela in his later years.

In my books Healing Israel/Palestine (North Atlantic Books, 2003) and The Geneva Accord and Other Strategies for Middle East Peace (North Atlantic Books, 2004) I show that both sides have a legitimate narrative that needs to be heard and recognized by the other side; that neither side will ever prevail through violence, and that each side needs to acknowledge that it has been unreasonably cruel and insensitive to the needs of the other.

Yes, of course it's clear that in the last forty years Israel's had the upper hand and has used its power in an immoral way. But these are peoples with long historical memories, and Israeli partisans are as unlikely to convince Israelis whose families escaped oppression in Arab lands that there was no Arab oppression of Jews as Palestinian partisans are to convince the Palestinians that they never really lived in the homes in Palestine from which they were expelled by the wars from 1947-1967.

Nor are we likely to get to peace by trying to discount the fears of Israelis and Jews who face a stream of violence -- from terrorist attacks to Hamas-launched Qassam rockets to physical assaults on random Jewish people from Paris to Moscow -- than we are to convince Palestinians that Israel is merely being sensibly defensive and exercising its right to protect itself. These kinds of triumphalist narratives must be abandoned.

But they won't be as long as Bush and his advisors in the neo-con camp see in the current violence yet another opportunity to reframe the Middle East struggle as one that will provide ex post facto justification for the war in Iraq and enticement for new militarist adventures to destabilize or overthrow oppressive regimes in Iran and Syria.

Instead progressives need to begin with a new discourse, one that demands from both Israelis and Palestinians -- and their Arab supporters -- that they reject violence and crimes against humanity on all sides (e.g. Hezbollah's current bombing of civilians in Haifa and Tsfat as well as Israel's punishment of whole nations), and realize that their only path to peace is one that starts from a place of atonement for their own sins, and a new spirit of open-hearted generosity toward the other side, recognizing it as the only way that either side will achieve what they want in terms of social justice, peace and security.

But since there are no signs of this happening, in the short run we should be asking the international community to step in, impose a settlement on all sides that includes a return of Israel to its pre-67 borders with minor border changes (as defined in the Geneva Accord of 2003), reparations for Palestinian refugees and for Jews who fled Arab lands from 1948-1967, iron-clad security arrangements enforced by an armed international force on the restored borders, and a Truth and Reconciliation commission that is empowered to expose all acts of human rights violations on both sides -- and to impose punishment accordingly.

While partisans on all sides of this struggle must abandon their fantasy of ultimate justification of their claims, a clear first step is to dismiss the neo-con fantasy of a global war of civilizations, with its accompanying notion that this is the best way to reframe the globalization of capital and American corporate domination of the world as a path to expand democracy and human rights. That fantasy is dead -- the Iraq invasion and subsequent tragedy has removed it from any level of plausibility. Let's not let the neo-cons use the violence between Israel, Palestine and Lebanon as an excuse to try to revive that which ought to be put to eternal rest.

Excerpt: The Left Hand of God

Editor's Note:The following is excerpted from The Left Hand of God: Taking Our Country Back From the Religious Right, by Michael Lerner (HarperSanFrancisco, Feb, 2006).

The unholy alliance of the political Right and Religious Right threatens to destroy the America we love. It also threatens to generate a popular revulsion against God and religion by identifying them with militarism, ecological irresponsibility, fundamentalist antagonism to science and rational thought, and insensitivity to the needs of the poor and the powerless.

By addressing the real spiritual and moral crisis in the daily lives of most Americans, a movement with a progressive spiritual vision would provide an alternate solution to both the intolerant and militarist politics of the Right and the current misguided, visionless, and often spiritually empty politics of the Left.

People feel a near-desperate desire to reconnect to the sacred, to find some way to unite their lives with a higher meaning and purpose and in particular to that aspect of the sacred that is built upon the loving, kind, and generous energy in the universe that I describe as the "Left Hand of God."

By contrast, the "Right Hand of God," sees the universe as a fundamentally scary place filled with evil forces. In this view God is the avenger, the big man in heaven who can be invoked to use violence to overcome those evil forces, either right now or in some future ultimate reckoning. Seen through the frame of the Right Hand of God, the world is filled with constant dangers and the rational way to live is to dominate and control others before they dominate and control us.

It is the search for meaning in a despiritualized world that leads many people to right-wing religious communities because these groups seem to be in touch with the sacred dimension of life. Many secularists imagine that people drawn to the Right are there solely because of some ethical or psychological malfunction. What they miss is that there are many very decent Americans who get attracted to the Religious Right because it is the only voice that they encounter that is willing to challenge the despiritualization of daily life, to call for a life that is driven by higher purpose than money, and to provide actual experiences of supportive community for those whose daily life is suffused with alienation and spiritual loneliness.

Many Americans have a powerful desire for loving connection, kindness, generosity, awe and wonder, and joyous celebration of the universe. These desires are frustrated by the way we organize our society today. A progessive movement or a Democratic Party that speaks to these desires in a genuine and spiritually deep way could win the popular support it needs to create a world of peace, social justice, ecological sanity, and human rights.

As I watch the likely Democratic Party candidates for president in 2008 scramble to position themselves as mainstream, I am all too aware that taking this kind of spiritual politics seriously is going to require a huge leap for many of us. Some Democrats think that they don't need these changes to win power, and they may be right in the short run. The current implosion of the Bush administration as it wallows in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, a failing war in Iraq, and scandal and indictments at the highest levels of government, may be enough to provide Democrats with election victories in 2006 and 2008 (though Republican redistricting is likely to dampen the chance for a Democratic landslide in 2006, and electoral fraud has increasingly characterized American national elections where so much is at stake).

But Democrats have won elections, even the presidency, before--and yet the movement of intellectual and political energy keeps on sliding to the Right, and so Democrats in office often end up acting from the assumptions of the Right in order to show that they are "realistic" and "non-ideological."

Nothing has been more dispiriting than to watch years in which Congressional Democrats continued to vote for tens of billions of dollars to fund the war in Iraq even after learning that the country had been lied to and manipulated into that war. Even after conservative Democratic congressman John Murtha called for immediate withdrawal from Iraq within six months in November 2005, the Democrats were unable to firmly endorse that courageous call.

Without a larger spiritual vision, the Democrats too often develop their programs by poll data, reacting rather than leading. They may eventually oppose a specific war, but they are afraid to oppose war. They throw money to alleviate suffering from some particularly terrible social injustice, but they are afraid to envision and fight for an end to all social injustice.

Let me reassure you that the spiritual vision I present is not an attempt to recruit you to some particular religious community or spiritual trip. You do not have to become religious to embrace a spiritual politics or to learn from the wisdom of various spiritual practices.

I do not blame many secularists who resent the way that some in the Religious Right seek to shove a fundamentalist and intolerant religion down our throats. Almost every religion, like almost every political and intellectual movement, has people of that sort, and holy texts (both religious and secular) have voices that validate an oppressive, dominating, fearful way of seeing. Yet in most religions (just as in many secular social change movements and liberation ideologies) there are also voices of the Left Hand of God, voices that embrace compassion, love, generosity of spirit, kindness, peace, social justice, environmental sanity, and nonviolence.

This political Right achieved power by forging an alliance with a Religious Right that is willing to provide a sanctimonious religious veneer to the selfishness and materialism of the political Right in exchange for the political power it needs to impose parts of its religious agenda on America. Capitalizing on a very real and deep spiritual crisis engendered by living in a society that teaches "looking out for number one" as its highest value, the Religious Right has managed to mobilize tens of millions of people to vote for candidates who end up supporting the very economic arrangements and political ideas responsible for creating the spiritual crisis in the first place.

With this alliance now propelling them into control of Congress, the presidency, and the judiciary, they have launched a cultural crusade against liberals, secularists, activist judges, homosexuals, feminists, and anyone who still believes in peace and social justice. The country received its strongest alert to the nature of the assault on the American tradition of religious tolerance when, in the spring of 2005, the Right began to talk openly about impeaching from the judiciary "activist judges" who were imposing "secular values" on the country, then managed to torpedo Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court (Harriet Miers) and encouraged him to appoint Samuel Alito, a sophisticated conservative ideologue.

Although I do not share the goals of many leaders of the Religious Right--and in fact believe that they pose a huge danger to American society--I must admit some appreciation for their willingness to state their objectives clearly and honestly, a refreshing change from the diet of mush that often emerges from the Democratic Party. Paul Weyrich, one of the Right's most serious strategists, said it clearly in 1980: "We are talking about Christianizing America. We are talking about simply spreading the gospel in a political context." I was invited that same year to debate Weyrich at the Moral Majority's annual Family Forum and found him a powerful advocate for a frightening worldview that I hoped would remain marginal in America. But twenty-five years later, having followed the advice of Jerry Falwell, who famously said, "Get them saved, get them baptized, and get them registered," the Christian Right is now carrying out its agenda.

It is perfectly legitimate to be alarmed at the growing power of those on the Right and the way they use it, to challenge their ideas forcefully, and to warn of the dangers should they succeed in their stated intentions. I will certainly do everything I can to prevent them from popularizing the notion that people have to be religious or believe in God to be moral and to challenge their particular understanding of what God wants of us.

What I will not do, and what I urge my friends in liberal and progressive movements not to do, is attribute evil motives to those on the Religious Right or to view them as cynical manipulators solely interested in power and self-aggrandizement. The Religious Right certainly has its share of power mongers and hypocrites. But the vast majority of those involved are people who are driven by principles and who want what is best for the world. We can strongly disagree with those principles, as I do, and we can argue, as I will, that they lead in a very dangerous direction, one that would actually increase the pain and suffering of humanity. But I do not doubt the sincerity or basic goodness of most of those who are involved.

So where are the Democrats, the liberals, and the progressive forces that have traditionally been able to provide a counterweight to corporate selfishness and have fought for separation of church and state?

For much of the past thirty years the Democrats have been more interested in showing how similar they are to the Right than how different. Faced with both a corporate takeover of the media that increasingly portrays liberal and progressive ideas as some form of extremism or "class warfare" and with a Religious Right that has managed to put secular people on the defensive, the Democratic Party and much of the liberal and progressive world (which for convenience I'll call the Left)* has contented itself with mild reforms. It tinkers with narrow policy goals instead of promoting an alternative vision and alternative values to those of the Right. Fearful of political isolation, Democrats listen to the wisdom preached by the media and by a bevy of corporate-friendly professional consultants who tell them to be "realistic" by accepting the contours of politics as defined by the Right. And the more they do so, the less anyone else sees these Democrats as a viable alternative. Democratic voters lose their enthusiasm. They go to the polls grudgingly, not because they believe that the Democrats have any solutions but rather to stave off the even worse consequences of Republican dominance. Many do not even bother voting, and millions of others look for vision elsewhere--and find it in the Religious Right.

Others take the approach of the "let's-move-further-to-the-left" section of the Left, insisting that the old formulas of the really radical Left, mixed with a repackaging of identity politics and presented as economic populism, would provide the magic formula, if only those Democrats would listen! But meanwhile, they can't explain why their candidates, running in Democratic primaries or as Greens, rarely manage to get significant support from American voters. But the "let's-get-closer-to-the-middle-of-the-road" mavens of Democratic leadership face that same challenge, since they've also tried the "let's-be-softer-and-gentler-born-again Republicans" strategy, and it too has failed.

We need to look deeper.

Liberals and progressives sometimes like to make fun of the Right by pointing out that it is precisely in the Red states of the Republican majority where abortions are most prevalent, where divorce is most rampant, where the power of corporate selfishness is most unrestrained by laws, where the malls have done most to uproot small businesses, and where materialism on the whole seems to be having its greatest field day. The same is true for many of the enclaves of Red-state consciousness in Blue states, such as the gated communities and mostly white valleys of Southern California or the suburban areas of many other Blue states. But that, of course, is just the point. It is precisely because people in the Red states are suffering most from the epidemic of uncontrolled me-firstism that so many residents of those states are so desperate to find a counterforce. They are the most susceptible to the appeals of a Religious Right that has become a champion for family values, tradition, the stability that is offered by authoritarian and patriarchal norms, and the real comfort that spiritual life offers through connection to something higher than money.

The point is that there is a real spiritual crisis in American society, and the Religious Right has managed to position itself as the articulator of the pain that crisis causes and as the caring force that will provide a spiritual solution. And then it takes the credibility that it has won in this way and associates itself with a political Right that is actually championing the very institutions and social arrangements that caused this problem in the first place. And with the power that each of these has gained by their alliance, they have become ever more arrogant in trying to impose their worldview on everyone else in society. Their alliance threatens to destroy the fragile balance between secular and religious people and to move the United States toward the very kind of theocracy that people originally came to this country to escape.

So, how could this happen?

It has happened because the political Left doesn't really have a clue about the spiritual crisis in American society and is thus unable to address it in any persuasive way. Witnessing the country give electoral victories to the Right, those on the Left are totally confused about why it's happening. They earnestly study poll data and then reposition themselves in ways that will not put them too far beyond where they imagine popular opinion is moving. It never occurs to them to be the shapers of this social energy instead of merely the responders. For much of the past twenty-five years, since the early days of the Reagan administration, the Democrats have explained their electoral losses by claiming that the country is just in a "conservative period," as though the political climate had fallen mysteriously from heaven and had nothing to do with the way liberals failed to develop mass support for a progressive worldview when they held political power. In this book I will provide you with an explanation of why we got into a conservative period and how that can be changed.

After the 2004 elections many Democrats read the exit-poll data and realized that some voters were motivated by "values." Since then the Democrats have been frantically looking for a magic bullet to win back the "values voters." But mostly their discussion has been about hype, not about substance.

If we, the American people, are going to win back our country from the Religious Right, we are going to have to reshape the Democratic Party and the Greens, or create some other party, to come to grips with the depth of alienation from liberal politics among the many people who continue to vote, unenthusiastically, for the Democrats as the only way to stop the Right.

A reshaped Democratic Party, or a new party, must minimally:
  • Understand, acknowledge, and respond to the spiritual crisis in American society--and provide a progressive spiritual vision that is more attractive than the one currently offered by the Right.
  • Recognize that people hunger for a world that has meaning and love; for a sense of aliveness, energy, and authenticity; for a life embedded in a community in which they are valued
  • Reject the tendency to regard people who are not part of the liberal culture as stupid, demented, or evil.
  • Fight for ideals that are not yet popular and be willing to stand for those ideals even if that means temporarily losing some elections.
  • Unite secular people in a movement with "spiritual but not religious" people and join both of those groups with progressive religious people.
  • Reject and combat the religion phobia that dominates important sectors of liberal and progressive culture.

Only a political party that can incorporate these goals at the center of its agenda can hope to win a majority, which would allow it to implement the other peace, justice, and ecological goals of the liberal and progressive agenda. For many Americans, meaning needs are the most pressing issues in their lives. This hunger for meaning, mutual recognition, and a spiritual foundation for their lives--for a sense of aliveness to counter the emotional and spiritual deadness that people experience in work and on television--is just as significant as the hunger for material well-being. Hence these are not issues that can be addressed "later," after all the peace and justice and ecological issues have been solved. These needs lie at the center of many Americans' lives, and unless we address them powerfully and convincingly, the Democrats and the Left will continue to lose power.

Read an interview with Michael Lerner here.

The Madness of Iran's President

Why would the President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, make inflammatory comments about Israel at the very moment when Ariel Sharon would have every reason to flex their muscular foreign policy? This is the question floating around foreign policy circles this week after the Iranian hard-liner took his anti-Israel exrtemism one more step, seeming to deny the severity of the Holocaust while reaffirming his notion that the Jews who live there should go back to Europe.

Ahmadinejad may not even be aware that the majority of Israelis today derive from Sephardic/Mizrachi backgrounds -- their families came as refugees fleeing oppression in Arab and Islamic countries, including Iran -- and it is they, not the Ashkenazic minority from European backgrounds who have given electoral majorities to Ariel Sharon and the right-wing parties who oppose peaceful reconciliation with the Palestinian people. Tens of thousands fled from anti-Semitism in Iran and Iraq, hundreds of thousands from other Muslim countries.

Ignorance of this history is no excuse. Ahmadinejad must be understood as a godsend for Sharon and the Israeli right who have had increasing trouble convincing anyone in the world that there is a credible threat to Israeli security. The arguments for the Wall and Occupation, the militarization of Israeli society, the denial of human rights, and the rejection of international agreements limiting nuclear weapons have all been based in part on the alleged threat to Israel's very existence by the Palestinian people backed by hostile neighbors.

Several recent trends have served to undermine this logic. Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties, the Palestinians have transformed their national Covenant to eliminate any call for the destruction of Israel, and Iraq's Baathist regime was declawed and dismantled. It's been harder and harder for Israeli hawks to explain where exactly the threat would come from.

Iranian intransigence on nuclear disarmament has now provided a new source of fear for the fear-mongers, and the specific calls by the President of Iran to eliminate Israel from the map of the world and to minimize the suffering from the Holocaust will strike a nerve that Sharon and other right-wingers can easily manipulate as they enter the election period ahead.

There is some danger that Israel might make an immediate strike at Iranian nuclear facilities. Though doing so would be a violation of international law and would have little military impact, a strike might strengthen Sharon's electoral chances now that he has broken with the most hard-line elements of the Likud to form an allegedly "centrist" party to compete with a Labor Party moving leftward. Sharon is being faulted by the Right for his withdrawal of Israeli settlers from Gaza and his promise to settle the Palestinian issue "once and for all." A military strike at Iran, either before the elections or in the coming year would provide the perfect political cover for accusations that Sharon's compromises made with Palestinians signal weakness in his policies.

Such a strike would also help President Ahmadinejad consolidate his position with Iranians. The stretch to resuscitate old-fashioned anti-Semitic tropes against the Jews as "outsiders" (the same kind of rhetoric used against minorities everywhere) did not play so well in Iran and required the intervention and backup of the highest Iranian religious authority to withstand the criticism that Ahmandinejad received.

But if this upstart young president could maneuver Israel into a unilateral military assault on suspected Iranian nuclear facilities he would be laying the groundwork for retaliation should Iran ever actually gain the military strength its new alliance with China and Russia make possible. As a victim of external attack, he would also become the beneficiary of Iranian nationalist sentiments that have at times been quite distanced from the fundamentalists who currently run the state. If secular nationalists were to rally around the Ahmadinejad government in response to an Israeli attack, this new extremist would have won a major new force that could stabilize and empower his regime for years to come.

The losers: the Israeli people (and those Jews around the world who insist on giving Israel a blank check to speak in the name of the Jewish people), who will become one level closer to being perceived by most of the world as international criminals; Americans, who will be perceived as having given Sharon covert support even as our State Dept. officially denies and tries to distance; those who seek to build a world based on law transcending short-term political interests. Ahmadinejad has been playing a dangerous game and we can only pray that his recklessness will not pay off and that Israelis will restrain the opportunism and militarism that might push Sharon to active confrontation with Iran.


Don't Sit on the Sidelines of History. Join Alternet All Access and Go Ad-Free. Support Honest Journalism.