Want to know what it felt like at J Street? Here’s one of the best moments I witnessed at the conference. (For the whole panel it’s from, watch it here.) My video begins with a beautiful question from a J Street conferee who says in some distress what so many people in J Street’s rank and file say in the wake of Gaza, that if J Street is getting behind a Jewish state without respect for the Palestinian minority, it can count her out because the soul of her existence is being a minority whose rights are honored in the U.S. "I know that this creates all kinds of conflicts with the narrative we’ve been raised on," she says wonderfully, but won’t Israel have to become secular to become a real democracy, and have peace?
As she’s speaking, you can see Doug Smith, a Christian activist who attended the conference, a gray haired guy two rows in front of her, nodding. And right in front of her on the right you can see Antony Loewenstein, the Australian anti-Zionist journo. Slender, darkhaired, in a dark blue shirt, with an orange lanyard round his neck.
Jonathan Chait of the New Republic responds to the woman and says, Look, you’re "a very small part" of the Jewish community, and this just demonstrates what I criticized J Street for: your base is to the left of the centrist message of the leadership– a true observation, by the way. And if the rank and file don’t take the message from the leadership, you folks will mean nothing, J Street will shrivel up and die. Chait then threatens the J Street rank and file with a peculiar power-politics blackmail. He says with the usual vagueness that he was talking with a Democratic political consultant the other day who told him that he likes what J Street stands for, but if J Street gave a candidate money, he would have to tell his candidate to give the money back because of "the mixed messages about Israel." Chait asserts that the consultant said that "once you’re in that position (the woman, questioning the religious character of the state), you’re out of the conversation."
And of course: You have no "mainstream role in American politics." I.e., keep Iraq-war-supporter Jonathan Chait in the forefront of the discourse!
Blogger Matt Yglesias then responds that if Israel isn’t a democracy, he’s going to choose democracy over Judaism. (I think he’s a little behind the curve: Judge Goldstone describes "persecution," and he’s right.)
J.J. Goldberg of the Forward ends the conversation wisely. He corrects Chait. The woman is not a tiny minority of the Jewish community. Watch it to see his exact statement, but actually a lot of Jews share her discomfort, he says, and they are bringing Jewish values to the conversation about Israel. Then J.J. talks about community– "what is a legitimate Jewish community." While there are hints of excommunication in what he says, he seems to allow that the woman is part of the "Jewish community" but she may not be part of the political community, the "lobby," because she doesn’t believe in Israel as a Jewish state.
Note the frankly religious characterization of the Israel lobby, from someone who diminished it when Walt and Mearsheimer came along.
A couple other highlights. As I move the camera around the room, you’ll see the blogger Spencer Ackerman on the right, clearly identified, and at 4:40 or so you’ll see the coeditor of this site Adam Horowitz (on the left side, near the front, red hair), who has written here that there is a disjunction between the J Street social movement and its political activities.
RE: getting behind a “Jewish state”
MY COMMENT: Perhaps my secularism is showing, but before I get behind a “Jewish state”, may I please be provided with a definition of “a Jewish state”. Show me a C-O-N-S-T-I-T-I-O-N! Is that too much to ask?
It is, because then Israel would have to define “Jewish,” which it can’t do. It would fall into a black hole of disputation, from which it would never emerge.
RE: Show me a C-O-N-S-T-I-T-I-O-N!
MY COMMENT: OK, I’ll settle for a C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N*! (lol) Is THAT too much to ask?
* Did I spell it right this time? I knew it looked too damn short! That’s what I get for trying to be ‘creative’.
TO RECAP, THIS IS WHAT MY POST OF October 29, 2009 at 2:36 pm SHOULD HAVE LOOKED LIKE –
RE: getting behind a “Jewish state”
MY COMMENT: Perhaps my secularism is showing, but before I get behind a “Jewish state”, may I please be provided with a definition of “a Jewish state”. Show me a C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N! Is that too much to ask?
I think J Street is the embodiment of the Israeli Basic Law which describes that Israel is BOTH Jewish and democratic.
Many can’t get their minds around a state being both. The left can’t. They state that being Jewish conflicts with being democratic. In other words, how is it possible to be both transparent and opaque at the same time. Either you are one or you are the other.
And, in not getting their minds around it, they opt for democratic. We are Americans after all, and OUR consciousness, our understanding of what is priority is democratic.
The Israeli right can’t get their minds around it either. They emphasize the Jewish aspect of it, and regard the democratic (especially the hotheads) as a threat only.
In contrast, I believe that Israel can be both Jewish and democratic, by defining its borders to construct a super-majority (70+ %) in the regions that are predominately Jewish, and applying equal due process under the law consistently, and equal rights in all respects for all, within its jurisdiction.
In a theoretical plebiscite, there are three alternatives for any square mile of land. Zionist, civilist, Palestinian.
There are only very small minority civilist parties in either Israel or Palestine. Most are currently nationalist.
You’re not an American, you’re a Zionist. There’s a difference.
Yeah, I’m beginning to see that there is a big difference between an American Jew and a Zionist. American Jews believe in actual democracy, for a start. And they’re actually loyal to the US.
Anyone who can get their minds around a state being both Jewish and democratic shows that their mind is devoid of logic. The “Jewish and democratic” state is self-controdictory. To the extend that it is Jewish, it can’t be democratic.
It is hardly a surprise to see that J Street and other fatheads can’t grasp this.
Whereas I think the idea of dual components to a design is an example of the virtue of the design.
I don’t see a contradiction with being Jewish and hosting equal due process under the law and equal rights for all residents.
I’m sure you don’t. Selective blindness works that way.
The contradiction isn’t in being Jewish, Witty. It’s in believing that Jews enjoy privelege that the rest of us do not, is what makes Israel (and yourself) fundamentally undemocratic.
The so-called Basic Law doesn’t mean jack squat, since it isn’t being enforced.
Hosting? What’s the difference between your POV and the old southern USA style “separate but equal,” Mister Witty?
In an earlier post from the J Street conference, at
link to mondoweiss.net
Adam Horowitz wrote:
“Finally, there is a more fundamental question …. where does this leave other Americans concerned with its country’s foreign policy? … Ben-Ami ended the opening evening by saying the movement J Street is a part of is a ‘movement rooted in love of Israel,’ and while all are welcomed to join J Street in its work, ‘the heart of this movement has to be in the Jewish community.’”
Adam concludes: “But, the tenor and message of the J Street conference would seem to indicate that the struggle to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be lead by Jews, after we conquer our own internal issues to reform our community, and on our agenda. Meanwhile, Palestinians will have to continue to catch the brunt of the Israel everyone loves so much.”
I fundamentally disagree. If J Street is any indication, the essential tasks of freeing the Palestinians and US Mideast policy from Israeli control cannot be left in the hands of American Jews alone.
There will need to be another non-Jewish (or at least non-ethnic) political action organization established. Call it, say, A Street (A for “All”).
A Street will be decidedly non-Zionist (anti-Zionists welcome) and strictly non-antisemitic (Jews welcome in leadership and rank-and-file; many Jews will leave J Street for A Street). A Street’s charter will explicitly avow devotion to US national interests and disavow devotion to any foreign nation. It will declare support for egalitarian democratic principles applied equally to Jews and non-Jews in Israel/Palestine. It will consult closely and continually with Palestinian leaders and progressive elements within Israel to decide what kind of peace effort and what kind of final status the organization should support. It will lobby Congress and the Administration in pursuit of its goals.
A Street will operate explicitly in opposition to AIPAC. It will in no sense be an agent or a lobby for a foreign government. It will work to end the “special relationship” with Israel.
Of course, there will be massive resistance to A Street, both overt and covert. Moneybags, beltway power brokers, and establishment foreign policy types will join together in an effort to crush it.
The organized Jewish community will fight it tooth and nail, fearing the worst. There could even be non-Jewish, non-Zionist individuals appearing on TV discussing US foreign policy.
Ostensibly, Jewish resistance to a non-ethnic A Street will center on (spurious) fears of increased antisemitism in the general population. But, more substantially, the concern will be about loss of control over what Adam called their “agenda”.
A Street will succeed where J Street fails.
Go ahead. Start it. Really invite ALL to participate, to join, to be fully accepted and permanently with no danger of persecution or vengeance.
Do what it takes to form genuinely civilist parties in both Israel and Palestine.
Don’t whine, DO.
But, if you don’t achieve a super-majority in both communities to realize your goal, DON’T resort to agitation or any revolutionary or punitive effort. Accept the choice of the population for their jurisdiction, their self-governance.
I assume that self-governance is a concept that you include in your definition of “democratic”.
Good advice, Witty. I like it, except for the “DON’T resort to agitation.” Activism is a form of agitation, and the right to political activism is implicit in the Bill of Rights. Let the battle be joined!
The Zionist lobby thrives on agitation, character assassination, smearing the messenger, obfuscation, etc.
That said, Richard is right in that it should be done, and it should be done from a position of what it is FOR, not against.
Of course, once started, it will immediately be demonized by the Zionist lobby, using the above-mentioned tactics. Much of its energy will be squandered merely having to defend itself from lies and distortions propagated by the Zionist lobby.
Make your argument, not your condemnation.
If the only result of that argument is the formation of many integrated institutions in Israel and in Palestine, that will be a great good.
That is NOT what Ali Abunimeh is doing currently though. He is pursuing the punitive approach, the isolating approach, rather than the integrating.
I personally don’t understand how by taking those two steps backward (isolation and punishment), he will accomplish three steps forward. I personally don’t believe that he is a potential leader of integration as I don’t believe that he adopts it personally. He is political, with litmus tests.
Barghouti who knows.
Witty, do you have any idea what sort of MONUMENTAL irony it is for you to go around accusing people of deflecting questions? Especially those who aren’t actually deflecting questions?
The perfect little Zionist — hide what you’re doing by accusing the Palestinian of doing exactly that.
It is silly to even try and make the argument that a Jewish democracy is possible while still adhering to basic human rights princples or providing for a civil structure than can guarantee equality. In a country where 93% of the land is controlled and held in perpetuity for the “Jewish” people, how can anyone even begin to make the argument? I think the right is more honest in Israel and I think J Street has no intention of holding out that it expects Israel to comply with International Law because to do so would mean the end of “the Jewish State.” Israel can’t adopt a constitution because to do so without a basic guarantee of equal rights for its entire population would expose Israel’s govenment for what it is. The way things operate now, with a shifting and weak Supreme Court in a land governed by ministries whose web of intricate regulations mask the true inequality that is the very fabric of Israeli society, is a much better way to hide the apartheid structure that began in 1948 and never stopped expanding.
Phil Giraldi nails it pretty well in his analysis of what J Street is and isn’t.
link to original.antiwar.com
CMI has a nice idea, an A Street. It is, however, naive in its idealism, as any such movement would either become coopted or branded anti-semitic, regardless of whether it truly was. Better to reveal J Street for what it really is, a sort of AIPAC light, dedicated to the continued flow of US$ to Israel, continued UN Security Council vetos, watering down of international criticism of Israeli actions, etc. There is no hope in this group. Although Giraldi distances himself from saying that there is any collusion between AIPAC and J Street, there is the fact that J Street needs funding, and those who fund tend to want some control. We can see that J Street has already significantly modified its original methods, morphing ever closer to the policies and ideas of AIPAC. Let’s continue to watch it, and think about better alternatives, for ALL Americans, not just Jews.
FPM
J Street’s support of Howard Berman’s resolution is really the nail in the coffin.
Isn’t it interesting how the self-described once USA civil rights sympathizer if not hard core activist dissenter against the USA staus quo, Witty, now uses the very term
“dissent” to mean exactyly the contrary? Anyone notice this?
Like many things Witty claims, I don’t actually believe him when he says he stood for civil rights. My take is that he’s blowing a lot of smoke at us in a vain attempt to trick us and buy our trust and, failing that, inject a false and poisonous narrative into American (and Jewish) progressivism. The reason he can do that is because he knows Phil Weiss won’t confront him. Hey, maybe the two know each other but I’m pretty sure they’re not friends. Just look at how Witty treats him — how Witty treats anything he expresses affinity for, like democracy, reform, nonviolence, etc.
FPM, I respect your views and so would ask what is “naive” or idealistic about a non-ethnic, non-Zionist, inclusive organization to argue, work, and lobby for the objectives I outlined above.
You say that, “There is no hope in this group [J Street] …. Let’s continue to watch it, and think about better alternatives, for ALL Americans, not just Jews.” How would the “better alternative” differ from what I outlined?
I agree with the objections you and Giraldi raised about J Street, the leadership of which seems to want simply to complement AIPAC by sucking more “progressive” Jews into the Zionist “I Love Israel” paradigm.
The trouble with J Street, as one can see from reading Phil’s and Adam’s reports, is that it cannot escape the cultural and tribal constraints of its ethnic membership. It is incapable of representing the interests of the Palestinians, and – just as importantly – the interests of the United States. It implicitly accepts the AIPAC doctrine that what Israel wants is good for America (or, who cares? … you got a problem with that, buster?).
Yes, you are right, any political action group of this sort that is not based on the ethnic identity of one of the “stakeholders” in the region (Jewish, Palestinian, Arab) is going to experience difficulties. The group leadership would need to be extra vigilant to cut the organization off from any expressions of antisemitism, without unduly limiting discussion of relevant issues. But this is the essential point: The American people, like it or not, have become a stakeholder in the region, also.
Some charges of antisemitism and “self-hatred” are unavoidable. That’s how the political game is played in those quarters. Any non-Jewish “white” person who gets involved in the politics of Middle Eastern policy (aside from hard-right neocon characters like John Bolton and James Woolsey) is eventually going to incur charges of antisemitism unless he/she is a wet dishrag. The effort will require good people with backbone, and, in some cases, courage.
“Continuing to watch” J Street, as you suggest, would be like watching paint dry. It means doing nothing worthwhile. It is not a course for meaningful action. The only way to get meaningful action within the next decade will be for large numbers of non-Jews – along with Jews – to put pressure in the right direction on their government.
Dan Kelly says,
“Of course, once started, it [A Street] will immediately be demonized by the Zionist lobby, using the above-mentioned tactics. Much of its energy will be squandered merely having to defend itself from lies and distortions propagated by the Zionist lobby.”
As I replied to Frankie P below, the effort will require good people with backbone, and, in some cases, courage. And energy and dedication.
I certainly don’t think it would be easy. If it were, it would have been done decades ago. But don’t you agree that something has to be done? If you don’t like the concept I outlined above, what would you propose instead?
CMI, I evidently forgot to hit the reply button. My response is below.
Something absolutely has to be done. I like the concept outlined above.
A Street’s charter will explicitly avow devotion to US national interests and disavow devotion to any foreign nation. It will declare support for egalitarian democratic principles applied equally to Jews and non-Jews in Israel/Palestine.
The most vocal and politically active group that currently engages in the above is the “Libertarian/Ron Paul right.” Unfortunately, many on the “left” are quick to dismiss this group because they don’t agree with them on other issues (and vice versa). If this schism could somehow be overcome, we would have a base, already largely in place, from which to work and grow.
Getting different groups to come together for the larger common cause has often been cited as the reason the “left” and “progressives” don’t achieve much of their agenda: they’re too fragmented. I also see this as a major obstacle in the anti-Zionist/Palestinian justice movement.
I didn’t mean to end on a negative note. I see it as an obstacle, but one that can be worked through.
Dan, I am rather familiar with Ron Paul’s views in this area because he was my congressman for quite a few years. While I consider myself to be mainly a liberal/progressive, many of my extended family and friends are libertarian and I find that we share a good many political principles (but, of course, not all).
You say, “If this schism could somehow be overcome, we would have a base, already largely in place, from which to work and grow.”
I definitely agree and think it’s a great idea to try to bring progressives and libertarians together into a lobby working for shared purposes, which wouldn’t necessarily have to be limited to foreign policy areas. Personally, I would like to see such a lobby strive for major revisions to the Patriot Act and greater protection of civil liberties supposedly guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. I think libertarians and progressives are both generally opposed to excesses in militarism and imperialism. So there is a lot of common ground and shared principles in both domestic and foreign policy areas.
Of course, as you know, there are significant differences as well. Libertarians stress individualism and freedom of action, while liberal/progressives give relatively great emphasis to communality, egalitarianism, and the common good. This partial dichotomy in fundamental political values can lead to obvious difficulties in establishing policy principles for the “lobby”.
For example, you quoted above a statement I had made concerning proposals for “A Street’s charter”: “It will declare support for egalitarian democratic principles applied equally to Jews and non-Jews in Israel/Palestine.” Working toward such an objective would come naturally for most progressives. But my impression of the Ron Paul-brand of libertarianism is that this kind of foreign (diplomatic) interventionism might be hard for many of them to swallow. Am I wrong on that?
At any rate, I think your idea about such a political union for limited lobbying purposes is most intriguing. You correctly point out that there would be “major obstacles”. But theoretically at least, with sufficient dedication, it seems doable.
CMI, you read my mind, as I was going to expand upon the divergence I could foresee happening between the two groups, despite the seemingly common overall objective.
“A Street’s charter will explicitly avow devotion to US national interests and disavow devotion to any foreign nation.”
That would go over well with the majority of Libertarians, I imagine, but not with a large segment of leftists, who agree with the U.S. getting involved in world affairs for humanitarian reasons. I guess the key word is “devotion.”
“It will declare support for egalitarian democratic principles applied equally to Jews and non-Jews in Israel/Palestine.”
This will go over well with most of the left, but many Libertarians aren’t exactly enthralled with the idea of egalitarianism being forced from above. Again, perhaps the operative words here are “declare support,” as opposed to active engagement?
I think the simplest and most effective way to get both groups together is to concentrate on American taxpayer financing of Israel. Libertarians generally don’t want to be financing anyone, and leftists don’t want to be financing states that carry out human rights violations (“human rights violations” is putting it mildly in the case of Israel’s behavior).
For a long time much of Israel’s behavior was dismissed by many on the left as the actions of a “U.S.-client state.” Thus, general antiwar, anti-U.S. imperialism stances seemed sufficient to most leftists to cover the Israeli atrocities, since they weren’t really Israeli atrocities, rather U.S. atrocities. I fell under this umbrella myself a few years back. I remember when I used to listen to Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now religiously, and she never once uttered the word “Zionism.” She has recently come around. Evidently Noam Chomsky has to some degree too, although I don’t read him much anymore (Chomksy, aside from telling his readers that he was a labor Zionist in his youth, rarely ever talked about Zionism. Chaos, a poster here, has told me that he does now).
Anyway, I went off on a bit of a tangent, but my point was that a larger segment of the left is becoming aware of Zionism and its American adherents and their powerful role in the I/P conflict, which is a good thing.
I think starting with the American citizen/taxpayer role in financing these atrocities is the simplest way to bring the two groups together and move forward.
Dan, I agree with all your points above and have had the same thoughts myself.
In drawing up suggestions for the “A Street Charter”, I struggled with terms like “devotion”, “declare support”, “national interest”, etc. I didn’t feel that those words represented precisely my own thoughts, but I didn’t have time to get it as right as I would have liked. My thoughts on the matter were just suggestions intended to contrast what I had in mind with the goals of both J Street and AIPAC, and hopefully to stimulate a thorough discussion of the matter. I’m grateful to you and Frankie P for taking me up on it.
In your first comment above, you said, “… it should be done from a position of what it is FOR, not against.” I do agree with that. In my first comment above outlining the plan, I unwisely recommended that the new organization make explicit its opposition to AIPAC policies. As Jeremy Ben-Ami quickly realized, this is not a smart idea. Also, I don’t think the organization needs to identify itself as ANTI-Zionist; it should be sufficient that it be known as non-Zionist.
I’ll continue my thoughts in a further comment below, addressed to both you and Frankie P.
Pingback: La Via, ovvero ‘funzionamento’ delle cose, e J Street at a vànvera
CMI and Dan,
I appreciate your dialog here, and CMI, I must admit that my comments about your A-Street idea did come off sounding negative when in all truth I would be a full supporter of it. I guess my cynicism about the whole shebang was getting the better of me. I agree with many of the points that both of you make, and I guess what gets stuck in my craw has to do with contemplating the consequences of CMI’s statement:
“Some charges of antisemitism and “self-hatred” are unavoidable. That’s how the political game is played in those quarters. Any non-Jewish “white” person who gets involved in the politics of Middle Eastern policy (aside from hard-right neocon characters like John Bolton and James Woolsey) is eventually going to incur charges of antisemitism unless he/she is a wet dishrag. The effort will require good people with backbone, and, in some cases, courage.”
Perhaps you underestimate the “power and fanaticism of the commisars”, to quote Chomsky. This project will require “non-Jewish white” people who are willing to put their careers and livelihoods on the line, for the “wet dishrags” are the only ones who won’t get smeared with the dirty brush. The steel backbone and long-term courage that is necessary will cause hesitation and finally refusal from many outstanding, righteous people who would otherwise join in, for who wants to deal with vilification, a wonderful technique that these people have honed to a sharp-edged knife. They’re pros. And who knows how to respond to the charges – “You’re anti-Semitic. What do you care about the Middle East. You’re not Jewish, you’re not Arab.” What do you say when someone calls you “an anti-Semite”. “No, I’m not an anti-Semite!” You’ve already lost, as the mud slinger always wins and you come off with a whiff of shit on your persona. Some of us don’t really care, as the charge has become next to meaningless to us PERSONALLY. However, those with public careers or in certain industries will not take the chance, and remain among the silent majority. How do we stimulate and motivate them?
FPM
“However, those with public careers or in certain industries will not take the chance, and remain among the silent majority. How do we stimulate and motivate them?”
FPM, I’ve thought a lot about this, and I do know something about how the vilification process works. You are right; it is a serious problem that must be solved. I offer some tentative thoughts about that below.
CMI,
One other point. I believe that libertarians also emphasize community and communality, but perhaps not on the grand scale that liberal/ progressives do. They prefer grass roots, decentralized community, trying to manage the size of the “common good”, as it seems that the larger the common good gets, the worse things become for all.
“Of course, as you know, there are significant differences as well. Libertarians stress individualism and freedom of action, while liberal/progressives give relatively great emphasis to communality, egalitarianism, and the common good. This partial dichotomy in fundamental political values can lead to obvious difficulties in establishing policy principles for the “lobby”.”
FPM
I believe that libertarians also emphasize community and communality, but perhaps not on the grand scale that liberal/ progressives do. They prefer grass roots, decentralized community, trying to manage the size of the “common good”, as it seems that the larger the common good gets, the worse things become for all.
Absolutely, and that is a point of agreement that can be emphasized, despite the difference of opinion on scale.
Dan and FPM, I hope that you will want to keep this conversation going for a while and suggest that we continue it on this thread, even though it has moved off the front page and is less visible to other readers.
Today I was too busy to spend much time with Mondoweiss, and will be tied up most of tomorrow also. But by Sunday afternoon I will put another comment here with some more ideas about four leading questions:
(1) What types of groups and individuals should be approached for participation in the political coalition or alliance?
(2) How should this exploratory “membership drive” be undertaken?
(3) What elements should the organization consist of and how should it be structured?
(4) What should be the organization’s fundamental principles and objectives?
I don’t pretend to have good answers to these and other pertinent questions. But I think if we exchange ideas we might come up with a workable plan. On the third question above, it seems to me that the initially loose-knit organization might have two arms: a literati/intelligentsia arm and a political activist arm. This much, initially, wouldn’t require a great deal of funding. After the organization became established, it could seek the expanded funding needed to support a lobbying operation. My guess is that, if all went well, getting to that point of a limited lobbying operation would take about two years.
Mondoweiss has a good group of intelligent, articulate, well-informed regular commenters with some diversity of (non-Zionist) political views, and a good representation of both Jews and non-Jews. I would hope that some of these “colleagues” will develop an interest in this subject and contribute their own ideas and critiques. (Witty did, briefly.) It seems like a good forum for exploring the possibilities, if people will take it seriously. If either of you know of regular contributors who would fit the bill, you might want to give them a note referring to this thread and encourage their participation.
PS – I don’t know how Phil or Adam would feel about such a non-ethnic, non-Zionist group competing with J Street. I suspect Jeff Blankfort might think it’s a good idea.
CMI and Frankie, I’m sorry I haven’t responded until now. I had to get away from the computer for a while, and today is the first day I’ve been back online. I have a tendency to get too caught up in this stuff, and it affects me personally. Basically, it’s not good for my mental health! It’s like an addiction, and I spend way too much time online, reading and researching primarily I/P issues. I’m trying to create a balance whereby I set aside a block of time to work on this, and then go do other life activities, but frankly I haven’t been real successful at it. This ends up consuming me, at which point I just put it all away for a few days. It’s like an all-or-nothing situation.
Anyway, I am interested in continuing the dialog. Perhaps we’ll catch up in another thread.
I wanted to say the other day that I think If Americans Knew is a good example of how I would envision presenting the facts to people. It does an excellent job of showing both the financial burdens of Israel (sure to appeal to Libertarians) and the humanitarian side, and it does so in a straightforward manner.