I don’t know how to read. Or anyway I only read the intermarriage portion of Jeffrey Goldberg’s interview with Jeremy Ben-Ami earlier today. Now I see that Ben-Ami goes after Walt and Mearsheimer, throws them under the bus. Walt and Mearsheimer wrote a great book. They never said that all foreign policy is controlled by one interest group. And I’ve gone further than they have in talking about Jewish identity and Jewish loyalty.
They did say that the Israel lobby pushed for the disastrous Iraq war–Jeffrey Goldberg and the New Yorker included. That this still counts as a revelation is a sign of the poverty of our debate. Here is Adam Garfinkle, in Jewcentricity, going well beyond what Walt and Mearsheimer say:
Neoconservatives are the purest expression of two phenomena simultaneously. First, they are an American Jewish example of the broad modern tendency for religious energies to attach themselves to politics, and second, they are an expression of stereoscopic chosenness, having filtered out the realism-inducing study of Jewish history and replaced it with the heroic narratives of American and modern Zionist histories…
Neoconservatives tend to unite aroudd the conviction that small, beleaguered groups of chosen believers can prevail over all odds if they stick to their beliefs… If this sounds like the sort of reaction one would have expected from Jews in centuries past who were assailed in their ghettoes and small villages by masses of threatening ignoramuses around them, that’s no coincidents. There really is such a thing as the moral chauvinism of the downtrodden…
Yes, and Jews are the only ones who can criticize the neocons on Jewish terms.
Memo to J Street: If you think that the lobby is going to be reformed within the Jewish community, you’ve got another think coming. Ben-Ami:
I’m more than happy to tell you why, on a personal basis, I don’t like what Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer have written in their book and in their articles. I don’t agree with Stephen Walt. It’s his business whether or not he chooses to say nice things about us. I have zero right to tell him, and I have zero interest in telling him, not to say what he thinks. That is his business.
JG: Tell me about the problem with his thesis.
JB: Here’s where the line is. There is no question that over the last 40 to 50 years, the American Jewish community has developed a very sophisticated lobbying mechanism to promote its views and its interests, and I am in awe of that as a student of politics. I also happen to respect and value much of what has been achieved. For instance, the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel, the essential security guarantee that the U.S. provides, the notion that Israel should always have a qualitative military edge — those are things that have been achieved by lobbying, by what some people would call the "Israel lobby." J Street is very happy with these achievements, and we support those ends, and we respect and admire much of what groups like AIPAC and others have done over the years.
However, when the analysis of that lobby veers over a line and essentially says that all of American foreign policy is controlled by this one lobby and this one interest group, to me, personally, this does smack of the kind of conspiracy theories contained in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This notion that somehow Jews control this country, they control our foreign policy, that there is some diabolical conspiracy behind the scenes, this is when you cross that line. I believe that the analysis in the Walt and Mearsheimer book and article crossed that line, but this doesn’t take away from my view that this is an incredibly effective lobby.
That kind of courageous stand will earn Ben-Ami a place in the history books. Footnote 345 in the chapter on AIPAC.
It’s become clear that J Street isn’t about convictions or principles, it’s about positioning.
It’s a good article. You can sense Ben-Ami’s personal struggle with his “Jewishness” and his desire for peace for the Palestinians. It was almost like he was on trial.
Meanwhile, the Palestinians continue to burn…
“It was almost like he was on trial.”
Nicely put. Faced with Goldberg’s inquisition, Ben-Ami did not do himself proud.
Yeah that connection between AIPAC and the USA’s rubber stamping of Likud Israel
is missing.
I wouldn’t be surprised if over 90% of the J Street conference attendees hold W%M in very high regard. If Ben Ami believes what he is telling Goldberg, I suspect he has very little idea as to the forces he has helped unleash. But then he is a political operator who is accustomed to saying different things to different audiences.
I think the proves once and for all that Zionism is incompatible with honesty or integrity.
I think you are correct in regard to W & M’s (and I have read the book from cover to cover including the footnotes), they do a superb job on identifying “the lobby.” There is no way you can get by their outstanding analysis and sourcing. That is why targeting this element of the book is either that Ben Ami did not read it (or read it carefully), or he is being patently dishonest.
In fact, the only place you could fault them is on the USA intentions in the ME, you would think they never heard the word hegemony. After a period of time you really get tired of their appeal and apologetic for how the US tried this and that, etc.
The only other criticism I have heard from the community is that is a misunderstanding is that it is “cold and calculating.” Come on new, these are two 800 pound academic gorillas from the realist school, to pick at their brisk style is just petty.
I have read the book too; I reread it from time to time when I come across people
disparaging it–I always conclude such people never really read the book or they
are simply dishonest. The gun lobby for example is, like the Israel Lobby, as American
as apple pie. The difference is anyone can speak out against the gun lobby, tear it to pieces with words, undermine its basic assumptions and projections, etc. That
free speech is not allowed as to the Israel Lobby. In fact nobody gets far in politics
in the USA unless they tow the hasbara line. M & W broke the similar academic
mold. Now, J Street has joined the fray with some Jewish voices who seem to
be displaying some talent at lobbying, however, where exactly is the defining line
between “effective lobbying” and “conspiracy?” If W & M’s book is similar to
the notorious Protocols hoax I fail to see it or smell it in the narrative and analysis or 100 pages plus
of supporting footnotes–
Comparing Mearsheimer and Walt to the Protocols is just a generalized form of brainless verbal abuse that is practiced as standard operating procedure by much of the Israel lobby, which is unable to defend its beliefs and policies on rational grounds. Now we know that J Street and Jeremy Ben-Ami are just more of the same old same old. From now on J Street shouldn’t complain about being smeared — they are smear artists themselves. Americans need to shake themselves free of the negative influence of both AIPAC and J Street and start focusing on the American interest and authentic American values in international politics. Messianic and xenophobic ethnic nationalism is not an American value.
syvanen, you’re absolutely right. Seems to me that he’s “appeasing” his critics by taking a potshot at W&M. He makes it sound as if he hasn’t even read the book.
The problem with his thesis is that Walt & Mearshimer provided J Street with a raison d’etre. Now he’s sounding like a lap-puppy of the AIPAC cabal.
Yeah, it’s like W & M’s sin is that they are talking in behalf of the 98% of USA citizens instead of the moneybags portion of the 2% American jews who desire Israel uber alles, and always paid for by goy Americans–Chaney and Rove are goy Christian’zionists, as was and is Shrub, now on the postive thinking circuit.
JB: An inaccurate quotation. Our staff is not intermarried. Not that that’s a bad thing. There’s nothing wrong with being intermarried.
JG: This is getting Seinfeldian here.
Kind of funny. Of course the distancing from W&M is really pathetic. Not sure which is worse, –that Ben Ami believes it, or that he thinks for J Street to survive he has to say it.
Either way it means irrelevance, because despite so many elitist and imperialist assumptions, W&M as establishmentarian scholars provide one of the only acceptible ways to talk about Zionist power in the U.S. If Ben-Ami can’t see an opening there, is he really looking?
Couldn’t he say something like, “You know, I didn’t like the book much, but with so much discussion right now about Iran, I do think we ought to examine the role that pro-Israel reasoning and resources played in the invasion of Iraq, Jeffrey. And that’s why I’d like to invite you to speak at the conference, as well.”?
Guess not?
Oh gee, doesn’t the experience of W & M show with deep underlining that an average Joe or Jane in the USA has no acceptable voice in USA foreign policy? It’s really
harmful, the USA is a dupe.
And what did M & W even say? That the Israel lobby has at least force of the gun lobby, and that, unlike the gun lobby, nobody can call them to account without suffering the
realistic aspects killing their careers and reputation? G-D forbid. Hey, is it your kid
going for his third round in the Middle East? Do you belong to that kind of family here in the USA? Next question: Isn’t it great be a Wall St guy, not a Main St guy?
Pingback: J Street leader compares Walt and Mearsheimer to ‘Protocols’ | JewPI
“Neoconservatives tend to unite aroudd the conviction that small, beleaguered groups of chosen believers can prevail over all odds if they stick to their beliefs… If this sounds like the sort of reaction one would have expected from Jews in centuries past who were assailed in their ghettoes and small villages by masses of threatening ignoramuses around them, that’s no coincidents. There really is such a thing as the moral chauvinism of the downtrodden… ”
I pretty much agree with this assessment on the neocons. Unfortunately, they seem to view most Americans an enemy to overcome.
The rest is more of the standard, self-proclaimed Jewish moral and intellectual superiority. Not every group that has attacked Jews in the past was made up of ignoramuses or reprobates with no specific reasons to act as neocons act towards their enemies.
The chauvanism of the downtrodden! Always the downttrodden! I’d really like to know what group has never been oppressed! On my mother’s side alone, there are English Catholics, German Moravians and English Protestants from the borderlands between England and Scotland. Each group has known violent repression, dispossession and forced relocation.
Wow! Are the wheels coming off this J Street already? W&M and Protocols in one sentence: a note of thanks from the ADL must be on its way as I write this. If Ben-Ami can’t handle fuzzbrain Goldberg then that doesn’t bode too well…
I notice something missing, a certain demand to SUPPORT.
He’s busy looking at the want ads, maybe?
The campaign against J-Street is working. If the smear tactics themselves don’t get ‘em, the fear of them will. They’ve got Ben-Ami working so hard to prove his Zionist bona fides that one can’t help but wonder what the point of the whole J-Street exercise is. Well done Hasbarah Central.
I never thought change was going to come from J-Street anyway. Change will happen from the grassroots or, perhaps more likely, from Zionist power caving in on itself.
I tend to agree with you, Dan. It won’t be pretty. Sooner or later, probably in conjunction with American blood being spilled directly for Israel. And the reaction will not be pretty.
And the problem is, as we see here over and over, that some people can only explicate their objections to Israel and Zionism, no matter how well founded or factual their objections, in an anti-Semitic context.
Dan when you say progress will occur only from Zionist power caving in on itself. I have to agree with you. What do you think J Street represents? It is a Zionist organization and I am not at all surprised to see Ben Ami’s denunciation of W%M. That is what Zionists do. However, they have unleashed a debate on the ME that is reaching power centers in Washington and are raising questions not seen in that arena in half a century. That is very positive.
And the problem is, as we see here over and over, that some people can only explicate their objections to Israel and Zionism, no matter how well founded or factual their objections, in an anti-Semitic context.
Likewise, many proponents of Israel and Zionism, even those “liberal” or “lite” Zionists, seem unable to explicate their positions sans the aura of Jewish supremacism.
Man, I long for the innocence of my youth, before I knew about these crazy distinctions that adults think of.
Well yes, goys will continue to be milked via USA taxes for Israel, and USA soldiers
will continue to die for Israel. What’ s your point otherwise?
they have unleashed a debate on the ME that is reaching power centers in Washington and are raising questions not seen in that arena in half a century. That is very positive.
I tend to agree syvanen, though I don’t know that that dialogue wasn’t already taking place before J-Street, and I don’t know that J-Street is particularly necessary to broaden the debate. I mean, J-Street is basically the less-hawkish pro-Israel crowd. Well, that crowd has always been there. AIPAC and the Commentary crazies and other Likud factions don’t always get their way, but Israel always gets its way (99% of the time, anyway), and I don’t see J-Street changing that. Hell, it doesn’t want to.
Listen, J-Street is what it is, and I recognize that it may be opening up a larger debate, particularly within the Jewish community itself. That is positive.
J Street is merely the second to Obama, it is meant to compliment Obama. Obama is the face while the core remains the same, J Street is the face while Zionism remains the same.
Either way, as I have said before and while quoting men like Warschawski, they are either going to sell you that Zionism and the Palestinian resistance are both equal worthy causes or they are not. Zionism cannot be a worthy cause in its current state (at the risk of repetition -
“That difference between “peace” and “justice” is connected to the divergence concerning the second assumption of Uri Avnery, the symmetry between two equally legitimate national movements and aspirations.
For us, Zionism is not a national liberation movement but a colonial movement, and the State of Israel is and has always been a settlers’ colonial state. Peace, or better, justice, cannot be achieved without a total decolonization (one can say de-Zionisation) of the Israeli State; it is a precondition for the fulfillment of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians – whether refugees, living under military occupation or second-class citizens of Israel. Whether the final result of that de-colonization will be a “one-state” solution, two democratic states (i.e. not a “Jewish State”), a federation or any other institutional structure is secondary, and will ultimately be decided by the struggle itself and the level of participation of Israelis, if at all.”
It cannot be achieved by merely changing the face of Zionism.
I wish that there was an actual Palestinian lobby to speak of; as in a group rooted in a large and wealthy Palestinian-American community (not to say that money should buy political power).
And the problem is, as we see here over and over, that some people can only explicate their objections to Israel and Zionism, no matter how well founded or factual their objections, in an anti-Semitic context.
I don’t know, in my experience this place is the exception. I don’t think that actual anti-semitism has been a major problem in the Palestinian rights movement (to the extent that there is one) in America. Probably less so than Europe, even.
Likewise, many proponents of Israel and Zionism, even those “liberal” or “lite” Zionists, seem unable to explicate their positions sans the aura of Jewish supremacism.
Too true.
However, when the analysis of that lobby veers over a line and essentially says that all of American foreign policy is controlled by this one lobby and this one interest group, to me, personally, this does smack of the kind of conspiracy theories contained in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
W & M went out of their way to absolutely NOT say this. They made it a point to say that it was a confluence of interests, with the Lobby being the most dominant player. Others have made credible arguments that they didn’t go far enough in exposing the Zionist Power Structure and its enormous influence.
As US_Objector said, it’s as if he hasn’t even read the book. Or else he’s lying. Either way, he’s misrepresenting what they wrote.
He’s representing what can be inferred from the book, and more directly presented in the article.
Walt/Mearsheimer have deniability in their thesis. “We never said the lobby was monolithic.” “We never said the lobby controlled the media.” “We never said that the lobby undertook illegal actions in pursuit of their ends as organized citizens.”
Phil did though. Phil’s posse did though. The “insightful” followers of the paleo- and fascisti did though.
The book and article was in ways an aberration from their current thesis, which is moderate, not fanatic (not even dangerously subject to even incremental exageration).
And Ben-Ami should acknowledge that.
A while back you claimed you never read the book, and wouldn’t. Have you changed your mind, or are you speaking, yet again, without having read the book?
I read the book a long time ago.
Perhaps you can describe how the Walt/Mearsheimer thesis differed from Ben Ami’s description, rather than YOU go for the jugular because he stated some criticism that you found irritating of a personal hero?
Have you ever stated a criticism of Walt/Mearsheimer?
Have you ever stated a criticism of those that exagerated Walt/Mearsheimer’s thesis for more fascistic ends?
Both you and Goldberg are inquisitors.
Talk about chutzpa. Witty never read the book so really has no idea what is in there. Then, when someone who has, makes a criticism of Ben-Amis incorrect criticism, Witty demands that we prove that Ben-Ami was wrong.
I read the book myself. I can assure you that Ben-Ami is exaggerating. That is my judgment and others who actually read the book. It is not up to us to prove anything to you, Richard, who has refused to read the book.
Yes Witty, I stated a criticism of W&M, now what are you going to do about it? However, I have also carefully read the volume.
Wittyism Number 5, Black is White: Make a moral equivalence between two things that aren’t equivalent by any stretch. Prior example: Hamas rockets kill at a negligible rate (barely a dozen deaths over a decade and thousands of rockets) while IDF attacks are invariably lethal (over 100 children — just the children, mind you — a week, for three weeks). Both are considered crimes of the same magnitude under Witty logic.
You believe what tree accuses, rather than ask?
I didn’t accuse you of anything, Richard. I asked if you had finally read the book. Please don’t try to pretend that you didn’t claim when it came out that you had not and would not read it, just as you claimed with the Goldstone Report. We all know you better than that.
Either you didn’t comprehend what you read, or don’t understand the meaning of the word “aberration”. (Or maybe you just lied and you didn’t really read the book.) Their “current thesis” is no different from their thesis as written in their book and article. Since you claim to have read the book, then you should back up your claim of “aberration”, lest we conclude that you don’t know what you are talking about. (As if we haven’t already concluded that about most of your pontifications here .)
Bullshit Tree.
You never asked. You ranted.
Did you read the article?
Did the book strike you as of the same tone and conclusion as the article? I didn’t to me. That the tone was so much more moderate indicated to me that Walt/Mearsheimer took the substantive criticisms to heart, and reported what THEY thought was a more substantial work.
Since that time, Walt has spoken assertively in favor of the two-state solution (rather than the fanatic single-state through BDS approach) and urged that the US and the world soberly undertake the intentional creation of conditions and relationships that result in a two-state approach.
Ben Ami should have acknoweldged that (he probably hasn’t read Walt recently). But, his characterizations of the dangers inherent in the Walt/Mearsheimer themes, and their carelessness in addressing them in the tone of the article (in my opinion) were rational statements.
The amgydala leads, once again.
Yup, MRW, there goes his vagus nerve.
Actually, Moose, I was referring to Ben-Ami for his hyperbole over W&M. :-)
Whoever didn’t see this coming wasn’t paying attention.
I don’t know how to read.
The most interesting Phil Weiss incipit I have read for a long time. I wish I had more time and less troubles and things to do. But following your link and reading a couple of lines makes me aware, sorry no time for politics.
Hello to everybody over there. I caught a tiny bit of news this morning. Israel ordered two warships that are to be build in Germany and financed by the German state. Not much time to look into this. But good chances Israel will get what it needs. The young CDU star will move on from economics to defense ministry wise. And he is the son of anti-Hitler resistance. The question is, does this all still make sense?
Warships? It already has two German-made nuclear submarines. What does the Spartan mess in the ME want with warships? Someone needs to stop it; it has delusions of grandeur.
Israel just took delivery of two more German-built diesel submarines, for a current total of five. The first three boats were allegedly retrofitted to fire nuclear nuclear capable munitions, I vaguely remember reading short-range Harpoons, but maybe they were fitted for much longer range Tomahawks. The former would require them to get pretty close to their target. Either way, those missiles are made in America, and would have required American assistance for acquisition and installation of the substantial required fire control equipment. Things that make you go … hmmmm.
There’s an old saying, “The Germans are either at your throat or at your feet.” The Germans once were against the Jews, and now they are to the contrary in spades–the Germans apparently have no capacity or nuance. Yes, LeaNder, in that sense you make sense.
There’s an old saying, “The Germans are either at your throat or at your feet.” The Germans once were against the Jews, and now they are to the contrary in spades–the Germans apparently have no capacity or nuance. Yes, LeaNder, in that sense you make sense.
Listen to Gabriel Kolko on antiwar.com radio:
link to antiwar.com
Israel Was a Mistake
It’s nothing but trouble, says Gabriel Kolko
Now they will be able to blow up mercy ships to the Palestinians without a trace….
As well as more fishing boats.
J Street and Jeremy Ben-Ami have just permanently lost my sympathies — they are beginning to look like yet another good cop and a tiresome good cop/bad cop routine that the Israeli left and right have been playing for decades. (I wonder how many people appreciate that Israel’s Labor Party has been even more aggressive in fostering settlement expansion than Likud.) Mearsheimer’s and Walt’s book is a solid and fair-minded piece of scholarship that deserves close attention.
I agree with you about M&W seanmcbride, they did a good job. I also think you are right about good cop/bad cop routine. Perhaps it should be looked at this way – like an inside fight, or like someone else trying to steal someone elses position in a corporation. The argument has never been about the product or substance, it has always been about who is going to get the position and lead the pack.
Yeah, I’m starting to have serious concerns about J-Street. They remind me of Obama–get progressives to think you are one of them, use their support as a stepping stone to power, and then abandon them. I hope this is unfair to J Street (and for that matter, to Obama, though I’ve never trusted him), but right now it is starting to look like what you say–a struggle for pack leadership, or the good cop bad cop routine that Labor and Likud have played.
I wonder how many people appreciate that Israel’s Labor Party has been even more aggressive in fostering settlement expansion than Likud.
Two sides of the same coin, much like the Democratic and Republican parties here in the U.S. How many people know that “liberal Democratic” presidents have started more wars than their “conservative Republican” counterparts? In the end, does it matter?
This is good news, very good IMO. The situation cries out for clarification and polarization. I hope M-W now rethink their naive conclusion against a broad-based, realist-inspired anti-Zionist movement. I’m sure Phil Weiss, for one, will stand with them.
Now we know why Witty was trying to get Weiss to sign in blood on J-Street’s dotted line — to tie Weiss’ name to the anemic, faulty movement that J-Street apparently is destined to be and let him go down with that sinking ship.
With friends like these…
“I hope M-W now rethink their naive conclusion against a broad-based, realist-inspired anti-Zionist movement. I’m sure Phil Weiss, for one, will stand with them.”
Broad-based? AF, why are you so sure about that? I remember Phil arguing against Jeff Blankfort who wanted “broad-based”. At best, he seems ambivalent about that.
I wasn’t aware of that, CMI. I should say, I hope.
Far-left Nation Mag now publishing realist Stephen Walt:
High Cost, Low Odds
link to thenation.com
Phil complains.
Its time to support something, clearly, articulately, with the goal of effectiveness and excellence.
Complaint is easy. To even seek cover (inconsistently) under “I’m a journalist, not a policy expert” is a negligence.
So you support an organization with a leader who equates M&W’s book with the protocols hoax?
Witty merely does the same thing that J Street does, this is why he is so positive toward the group. J Street leader compares M&W book with protocols of Zion, Witty merely repeats the mantra – they are made for each other.
It is time to come out against injustice, not to support an organization that will perpetuate it.
There is something to be said for being for something as opposed to against. Mother Teresa once said she’d never go to an antiwar rally, but to call her when there is a pro-peace rally. It goes hand in hand with the “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” principle. So, as the anti-Zionist “movement” has gained extraordinary momentum the last few years, the Zionist “movement” has also broadened, covering its bases with organizations such as J-Street on the one end, and even more extreme positions on the other end.
I know, I know: It sounds nice in theory, but if you’re a Palestinian you’re not going stand by and sing kumbaya while Israel continues to steal your land and make your life miserable. You resist, as anyone with a pulse would.
But as you resist, the other side comes at you harder.
Something’s gotta give.
Something does give, and there is relative peace, for a time.
And then the cycle begins again.
Richard Witty October 24, 2009 at 7:38 am
Phil complains
Its time to support something, clearly, articulately, with the goal of effectiveness and excellence.
—————–
OK. So, what do you support that is different from what has been tried for the last 20 years and failed? Do you acknowledge that Israel is not interested in a two state solution with a sovereign Palestinian state within the 1967 borders? If you don’t, and still believe liars like Olmert, then there’s nothing to discuss here.
BDS is the only way. Alas, you don’t support it.
Therefore you do not support the Palestinian right to self-determination.
End of story. Quit pretending.
Complaint is easy. To even seek cover (inconsistently) under “I’m a journalist, not a policy expert” is a negligence.
Show me were partisanship–support something, clearly–is part of the Journalist’s code of ethics or which US legal framework allows a US journalist to be partisan.
Facts are sacred, comment is free
From the above linked ethics code:
Over here in Germany during the Weimar Republic there actually were legal activities to change the laws and give journalists such rights versus the rights of the publisher. The Nazis brought an end to that and added someone that was personally legally responsible for everything written in a paper or magazine. Their law was called according to this guy: Schriftleiter, Schriftleiter Gesetz/law.
Its a very good question IF Phil is a journalist or a partisan on these issues.
I think he uses the journalistic form, TO advocate.
Its parallel with others that use the academic form TO advocate.
Are those examples of journalism, or academic research? Possibly. How does one tell where the greys are?
Speaking of shoot the messenger, just saw this impartial analyst on C-SPAN bashing Carter, and Obama by proxy:
Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos: A Carter/Obama Plan That Will Not Work ~ Mike Evans
link to amazon.com
J Street’s approach (and similar peace efforts) are the ONLY approach that will yeild both peace and justice/health for Palestinians.
To take pots as if the irritations were fundamental, is to hinder their efforts.
Phil revels in complaints of J Street’s critics, when he historically has spoken of them in similarly condemnatory terms.
If he is supporter, let him say it. If he is a supporter merely of their proposed policies, let him say that.
I’m not asking him to lie. I’m asking him to disclose.
If his impressions are reasonable, he can explain how he concluded what he did, and what he understands as conditions that might change his conclusions.
It would be honest and ethical for him to do so, rather than adopt the falsely “journalistic” social/religious code. I say that because to my impression Phil is no longer journalizing, but advocating, propogating.
Better that he use the term “I” at least considerably, and then describe his reading and comments as elaborations of his named thesis.
If he used the term “I”, then there can be peer dialog with him. “I” understand this from this observation, reading, reasoning. “I” hear that, but I also include that in my reasoning, and weigh it differently.
Honest, respectful. NOT vanity of authority, broadcast.
Witty Phil is NOT the issue here, the facts are on the table. Either you participate in the factual feast or you keep brooding in the minor about Phil, which is it? Not to be crass, but do you think I give a rats ass what anyones opinion is apart from the facts, I don’t. So Phil is not the subject – what is you’re argument, you do not how he allows the facts to be laid bare? Why don’t you go take a ride on another persons back for a while, the personalization of a subject is death to an argument – that is why you have no argument.
The majority of Phil’s commentary is on the media, of which Phil is one.
That is the “fact” of media analysis.
The “fact” is Witty you do not know what you are talking about. Media is either a factual source, particularly in the realm we are dealing in, or it is bullshit. First you determine what is true and untrue, and than to comment to the facts – otherwise you become a nut. Take to heart the previous sentence.
I have to leave again, but this is really absolute nonsense:
Phil is in fact following clearly journalistic rules, while you demand he turns into a partisan.
The Protocols – W/M analogy is really simplistic for anyone you understands that the “Protocols” essentially plays with century old Machiavellian concepts and only used them at one specific point to scapegoat Jews.
Both sides, the people attracted to the Protocols since it seems to “explain” everything that happens in politics AND the Jewish community who simply want to reduce criticism of the politics of “the Jewish lobby” to a new version of the historical hoax “the Protocols” simply ignore the long and old Machiavellian tradition that surfaced in them at one precise historical point, a tradition centuries older than the protocols themselves.
The essential question is. Should a one hundred years old forgery be used to cloak Jewish special interests forever? Can Jewish or Israeli special interests be never addressed reasonably since this document was once created to hide the special interests of the Russian/European far right? Who simply mirrored their own “control interests” on “the Jews”?
I have no time to put this better.
anyone who understands
gone again.
Witty, do you think (as I do) that J Street has changed its tone dramatically in the last month? Maybe I misread the organization, maybe I wanted too much to believe that something that mainstream and that Jewish could work, that J street really did represent a critical mass or even a silent majority within American Jewry. But they seem to be folding pretty quick under neocon pressure. The Protocols smear is simply an outrage, really a way of saying that non-Jews shouldn’t be allowed to comment on America’s Mid East policy and what inspires it. I’ve been a J street supporter to the extent of my financial ability, and will go to the conference and the dinner. But I no longer feel good about it.
I feel very good about J Street, even if I don’t agree with every statement or nuance.
All parties bend.
If you are not confident that you endorse their fundamental mission, that is a different question.
I am confident that they will stick to their mission, or they will dissolve, and a new entity will attempt to realize a viable two-state solution with reforms enacted.
I don’t see the “folding”.
I won’t be at the conference. I’m poor and can’t justify four days in a hotel and plane fare, just to watch from row 2000.
Keep an open mind, with your eye on the prize, not only the road to it.
And, persuasively remind them of what is important if you get the opportunity.