You keep on wanting to fight us as Zionists whether you have an argument or not. As I’ve said, the ongoing conflict with Israel
and the oppression of Palestinians is a contributing factor (but
certainly not the definitive reason) for Arab and Muslim violence
against the West. My calling this ”an irritant” is hardly a reason to
go hyperbolic.
was no longer a threat to Israel. That the 2003 invasion was being sold
to the mostly liberal Jewish community as a question of Israel’s
security is very different than the proposition that the US government
decided to invade in order to protect Israel. I would hope that you
could still come to see this.
Meretz USA did not buy into this notion, so we as Zionists have
nothing to be “ashamed about” in this regard. Even I, who wanted to see
a murderous dictator overthrown for the sake of the Iraqis themselves,
came to see the invasion as a bad idea even before it happened.
If my words are not emotional and definitive enough for you, so be
it. But your complaints are misplaced because we progressive
Zionists did not support Bush’s Iraq policy nor do we support Israeli
policies that perpetuate occupation and oppression of the Palestinians.
"Even I … came to see the invasion as a bad idea even before it happened."
Is there by any chance some public statement of yours from that period that you can point us to? (Purely to serve as an inspiration for future "progressive Zionists" in the battle against future war campaigns, you understand.)
I could refer the "Committee for Historical Accuracy" to a couple of friends of mine who I spoke with at the time, but I published nothing expressing this view before the invasion. Since I'm not a high-profile writer, and this was before the Meretz USA Weblog began, you'll just have to take my word on this. The war was very unpopular among most progressive Zionists –whether or not you use the putdown of ironic quote marks around the words "progressive Zionists".
That the 2003 invasion was being sold to the mostly liberal Jewish community as a question of Israel's security is very different than the proposition that the US government decided to invade in order to protect Israel.
Why do you think this target-group-selling happened? The scapegoat scenario was early on my mind, obviously, but this seemed to make it somehow a produced scapegoat. (not sure if I get this over, as it felt)
Net-wise it was a really strange experience to witness all these ideological-pro-Israel/pro-war foot soldiers, or as James Wolcott called the phenomenon: attack poodles.