Here's yet another attack on J Street, somewhat crudely written, from communist-cum-neoconservative war horse Ron Radosh of Pajamas Media. He denies that there was a blockade of Gaza and says that Jews here must figure out what to do by checking with the Jews in Israel. He cites the great liberals Alan Dershowitz, Eric Yoffie and Marty Peretz. Dershowitz is 70. Mary Peretz is 70. Radosh is 71. Some of this is generational. Young Jews should come out and stand up for J Street. Come out come out wherever you are.
PS. Dan Fleshler goes after me here for going after J Street in earlier posts. "Weiss picks the wrong enemies." Methinks he's right! I have tons of differences with J Street. Now is not the time to indulge them. J Street really is taking the spears. (Thanks to Richard Witty for passing this along.)
Phil, you know all this 'zionism lite' is just for show. It has no valid strategic context.
The PRIMARY emphasis of Dan's comments were on the necessity of long-term efforts to establish the FOUNDATIONS of peace, in attitude, in institutions, in networks of relationships (most of which are NOT political).
Whether you are an advocate of an eventual single-state, or two-state, those foundations are what is important.
There are two elements to dissent that are the oppossite of seeking peace.
1. Focusing ONLY on the surface, the event of the day.
2. Forming an ideology that dismisses or negates the other.
That criticism applies to BOTH pro-Israel and anti-Israel perspectives.
Neither create peace in the real world. Both instead IMAGINE according to incomplete ideological consistency, rather than reality.
Dan's comments were profound.
You should report them, rather than only refer to them.
I wouldn't waste any time at all on Fleshler. He has no more to say than any other clone.
Dan's narrative was incomplete by obvious calculated omission:
because by its own public admission the IDF also used the ceasefire to plan this current military response. Why only accuse Hamas of the same thing that Israel did (under cover of the ceasefire use the lull to prepare for armed conflict)? A more truthful Fleshler would have mentioned that both sides didnât use the ceasefire in the manner in which outsiders think it should have been intended; i.e., to negotiate for peace not plan for war. That Witty thinks Fleshler's piece "profound" simply underscores the Zionist mote so long stuck in his eye.