I was a little hard on J Street in my last post. Oh well. At least they're trying. Without recanting my position, here are some extenuating points.
Donna Edwards, a freshman congressperson from Maryland endorsed by J Street, has a moderately appealing statement on Gaza, here:
At least she's mentioning the "blockade." About time. So if J Street is giving her backup, good.
For another thing, J Street is of the Jewish community, and all the leaders of that community are "My country right or wrong," and that country isn't the U.S. Here is Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the head of the Union for Reform Judaism, attacking J Street's statements in the Forward.
These words are deeply distressing because they are morally deficient, profoundly out of touch with Jewish sentiment and also appallingly naïve....
Isn't that dual loyalty, when you check all your opinions with foreigners? Now, here's Jack Ross defending J Street:
Yes, J Street is still lobbying the lobby, and yes, they and their various allies still represent a minority, but the tide has still ineluctably turned. It seems the Israelis have begun to step back from the brink a second time, and now the real fallout will begin.
Your other story about Barbara Starr I found very significant and promising in this respect. I've always rightly or wrongly considered her a very grating Pentagon mouthpiece, which if so makes it especially promising if she therefore is speaking for Bob Gates against escalation.
"For another thing, J Street is of the Jewish community, and all the leaders of that community are "My country right or wrong," and that country isn't the U.S."
Is this really you talking Phil?
Sometimes your comments are so antagonistic as to defy belief.
You engage in far too much self-talk for a credible journalist.
Your oft-repeated hope that of American progressive uprising is a deafness. I guess there is some sign of dissatisfaction, but not a lot.
Richard,
Is it that you are unable, or unwilling to see that Phil's statement is right on the money?:
"For another thing, J Street is of the Jewish community, and all the leaders of that community are "My country right or wrong," and that country isn't the U.S."
Please note, Richard, that Phil does NOT say that the entire American Jewish community subscribes to this belief. Unfortunately for America, Palestine, Israel, and the American Jewish community, the leaders of organized Judiasm in America DO subscribe to this belief, and they put a lot of money and political power into making sure that what the American people, including the rest of the Jewish community, see in the news and in the public sphere adheres to their viewpoint.
PM
My sympathy for J-Street's difficulties is limited. That's like giving someone an 'A for effort' for bailing out a few gallons of water when the side of your ship is stove in. Sure, it's great that you are helping, but you aren't doing a damn thing to keep the ship from sinking.
I get that American Jewish leadership doesn't think that their ship is sinking, and are confident that they can continue business as usual for the indefinite future. They have grown complacent with success, and if I were a betting man, I sure as hell wouldn't bet on them.
So today I blogged that I secretly resent friends who think Israel's attack is justified.
A friend commented that she CANNOT believe that many Americans believe such a thing.
Well… I can think of two California friends right off. I haven't taken a poll of other likely candidates among my wide circle because I don't want to know.
"Tragic but necessary" (see above) means to me that the person thinks it is actually "necessary" and therefore justified or defensible or "ok" to kill over 400 people. Full stop.
Or am I supposed to be reassured and comforted because a person will say: I am sad that it is so necessary to kill all these people. I weep for the tragedy but it is necessary to kill these 400 people because (insert reason here).
I don't understand this statement as anything but clueless heartlessness. Weep all the tears you want over the tragedy, but if you say it's necessary, then I say:
I really can't be friends with you.
My only dilemma now is whether to speak up and say this to people, or just quietly drop them.
Amazing, blasphemous, self-satisfied, turgid, sub-Shmuley, bullshit article by Howard Jacobson about Leonard Cohen:
By the way, Phil, your big buddy Obama appears to be living in a neolib dream world at least as divorced from global economic and political realities like the dying dollar system as the neocons. Here his team expresses a desire to return to the moon before the Chinese get there, purely for reasons of prestige, what a vain hope:
Leila,
Do you hold the same view towards those that justify Hamas shelling of civilians, in any way?
Its a question, not an excuse.
As Saif acknowledged in a dialog with me a year ago, that he honestly did hold a predisposition to defend his tribe more than his declared humanism, as I acknowledge, do you similarly?
Its a question, not a condemnation.
Multiply by hundreds:
alt=”">
Leila,
Another angle on some Jews' (and others) reluctance to condemn the bombing in Gaza, is that we have experienced enormous frustration at trying many different approaches to get to a more permanent cease-fire.
There is the hope that a compelling military response will reduce the violence in the future, that the result might be "success" for both Hamas and Israel.
Success for Hamas in opening the Gaza/Israel and Gaza/Egypt crossings. Success for Israel in permanently stopping the shelling of civilians in Southern Israel.
The past strategies by either Hamas or Israel have not realized any real peace.
The dilemma for one committed to peace is of risking "I predicted as such". IF a permanent cease-fire comes from military action, then our predisposition that good will follow good is questioned.
Both Israel and Hamas play that same game. They believe that they cannot on the street be seen as giving in to violence, of being weak. They have to be able to say "I told you so."
As I said earlier, when dogs fight one gives in, and the other moves on.
It is the perception that one is surrounded, or has no options, when in fact one does have options, that leads to permanently continued fighting.
As Richard Silverstein posted recently in his blog, the tangible solution is simple, if simultaneous.
1. Permanently open the crossings (as if they were a regular border)
2. Permanently stop the shelling.
SIMPLE!!!!
On Phil's comments on J Street.
They are racist generalizations.
Its in the same place as the hope that the US military presence in Iraq succeeds.
To hope that it doesn't succeed, is to hope for indefinite violence and/or rule of fanatics.
To hope that it does succeed, is to hope in some way for military as the means of firming order.
In Vietnam times, the dilemma turned when self-appointed "anti-war" leaders adopted hoping that American soldiers were defeated militarily as their means of dissent. It stepped over a line of civility and hypocrisy.
A dilemma.
To sum up Richard's statements:
War is the Mother of all Hope.
Were Phil a true cockeyed optimist, he would celebrate this one with me. Since he doesn't, he must in fact be not only a self-hating Jew but also a self-hating American.
Why does my self-hating racist* friend not understand this simple fact!
* no oxymoron in this context.
If you do not understand this, you are part of the evil out there Obama has to fight in the future.
Inotherwords, I respect Phil's optimism, but I wonder whether it isn't more cocksucking than cockeyed.
Jim, you really need to talk to Phil about the identity protection on this site.
The Vietnam war was stopped mainly due to young US male college students who did want to be drafted. Their partner was the now
defunct Fourth Estate.
The current state of affairs is not equipped with such brakes.
This is the first time in two years of commenting that Richard Witty
has openly declared his top priority: his tribe. Kudos to Mister
Witty!
When you use the term "top priority" you distort.
My top priority is my children and wife, more than myself, more than my cousins of cousins.
I suggest that EVERYONE here or elsewhere has some accurate "we", multiple "we"'s that they feel a part of, feel an urge to express solidarity with.
Leila does, I do, Saif does. It is the recognition that we are actually human beings and NOT abstractions. And, as human beings, we can make the kind of changes that are peace.
But, as abstractions, we are only self-talk.
"War is the mother of all hope".
Express that criticism to Hamas as well and we can actually call ourselves dissenters.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0102/p99s01-duts.html
Hamas calls for 'day of wrath' after senior official killed by Israel
The group says suicide attacks may begin again in response to Thursday's Israeli airstrike on the home of Hamas leader Nizar Rayan.
By Arthur Bright
Hamas threatened reprisals against Israel, including the possibility of new suicide attacks, after an Israeli airstrike killed one of the Palestinian group's top officials Thursday. The ongoing fighting has also sparked concern in the UN about a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Agence France-Presse reports that Hamas called for a "day of wrath" in response to the death of Nizar Rayan, a party hardliner and military leader. Several of Mr. Rayan's wives and children were also killed in Thursday's attack.
Rayan is the most senior Islamist figure killed by Israel since Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi in 2004 and Hamas again warned that it could resume suicide operations against Israel for the first time since January 2005 to avenge his death.
What's the difference for you, Richard, when your children and wife
are merely the most immediate incarnation of your tribe, your top priority? Compare: In the land you and your family are sheltered in
the abstraction individual is the core of liberty, equality, and responsible citizenship. Never mind, it's a Western, Christianity-derived and lived concept, which you label and spit on as "only self talk."
We understand your need to view yourself and your activities as part of a larger, higher, more altruistic and eternal tribe. Assimilation is
just so selfish!
What's the difference between what?
Don't get obtuse as a satire. There is meaning in each of my comments, which you can ask about if you don't understand.
I definitely identify with Israel more than I identify with Palestine.
I identify with Ontario, more than I identify with Texas. And, I identify with Palestine more than I identify with Texas. And, that probably makes me disloyal, or unpatriotic.
I'd probably ignore if Texas were invaded by Mexicans (wait a minute, Texas IS Mexico, only taken by imperialistic military force 150 years ago – in a couple phases).
And, I wouldn't ignore if Israel were attacked by Palestinians.
Thats accurate.
"War is the mother of all hope".
Express that criticism to Hamas as well and we can actually call ourselves dissenters.
Good point, Richard.
War is only creating hope if it is waged by a superior and righteous force. Then and only then the war waging power is not responsible for but ultimately justified by the outcome.
Every true dissenter knows that.
To hope that it doesn't succeed, is to hope for indefinite violence and/or rule of fanatics.
No, moron, not everyone here is an Ashkenazi racist who thinks Arabs are incapable of ruling their own countries without violent suppression and fanaticism.
Western imperialism and then Zionist colonialism are two of the major factors that contributed to tyrannical rule in the Middle East, particularly Iraq.
Witty's extreme credibility problem stems from the acquisition of too much zionized history, and too little history written from other perspectives. Zionism needs fanatical Arabs to justify its actions.
One would be a fool to let someone so deluded and ignorant of zionism's colonial nature to define the guidelines for acceptable dissent–and fortunately, none here do.
Witty, you have such a Zionist mote in your eye you don't see that your last response fails completely to respond to my last post.
I was anything except "obtuse as a satire". There is much meaning in each of my comments, which you can ask about if you don't understand, which is obvious.
More from you disloyal American:
"I'd probably ignore if Texas were invaded by Mexicans (wait a minute, Texas IS Mexico, only taken by imperialistic military force 150 years ago – in a couple phases).And, I wouldn't ignore if Israel were attacked by Palestinians."
Precisely, Witty. As if we didn't know this is your heart. The distinction you make here for all to see is that American goys
should be subjected to moral symmetry, but Israel, your patriotic homeland, all the while you live comfortably protected by low life
goys to the max, is immune from the same logic. Unless we call
tribal logic–logic.