Derfner in the JPost, "Die, J Street, Die!"
In public, Binyamin Netanyahu has credited the welfare cuts he made as finance minister for helping bring down the Israeli Arab birthrate. Avigdor Lieberman has threatened to bomb the Aswan Dam, wished death on Arab MKs and run on the election slogan "Only Lieberman understands Arabic."… In good conscience, can AIPAC invite any of these people to its next convention? [Of course.]… But that’s the point – in Washington, when it comes to Israel, the Right doesn’t have to answer to anyone for anything, while the Left has to apologize for living. And for many on the Right, there’s no apologizing for that.
I’m still waiting for your clear and definitive statement of support for J Street, rather than the rearguard straw dogging in opposition to their opponents.
Dictate everyone’s view much, Witty?
“Rearguard straw dog,” is that a football play?
“87 rearguard straw dog on 2! Ready? Break!”
Witty steps up to the line of scrimmage. It’s gonna be a blitz. He calls out an audible. “Hitler 1938 Bomb Iran! Hitler 1938 Bomb Iran!”
The defense reacts and shifts back into coverage.
Witty takes the snap and drops back into the pocket. There’s nobody open. The pass rush is closing in. He’s gonna have to toss up a hail Mary.
He’s about to launch the ball downfield in desperation…
But what’s this? He’s dropped the football! He’s running toward the referee!
He tackles him!
The defense is stunned. They don’t know whether to pick up the ball and run for the endzone, or try to save the poor ref.
In the post-game interview, Witty claims he tackled the ref in self-defense. “He was threatening my right to exist as the winning quarterback. I was waiting for a clear and definitive statement of support.”
Despite fumbling away the game on the last play, the media calls Witty’s move “heroic.” They mount an all-out attack on the referee in question. One former commissioner of the NFL points out in an op-ed that this is the difference between open and closed football teams. “There is no evidence to suggest that quarterback Richard Witty did anything wrong. That particular defense had been threatening to murder quarterbacks everywhere.”
former coMMenter,
I had no idea there were so many posters on here with such a creative sense of humor.
I got a good laugh out of it.
But there are serious implications to that scenario, Nolan. Don’t you see what a danger it is to Jewish identity if a Jewish quarterback needs to throw a “Hail Mary” in the first place?
Next thing you know, to garner the much-needed support of American evangelicals, the IDF’s surprise December attacks on women and children will have to don Christmas references, like “Operation Glowing Mistletoe.”
And how long then before Alan Dershowitz is changing his name to Alan Christensen, and the Old Testament’s Ten Commandments are being banned from Public courtrooms?
It’s a dangerous, slippery slope.
To really get inside the Zionist mindset, you have to understand that national annihilation is lurking behind every ridiculous hypothetical scenario.
Effin’ hilarious, FC. If only the ‘Three Stooges’ were alive. It would make a brilliant short.
“He was threatening my right to exist as the winning quarterback.”
LOL
We’re still waiting for your clear and definitive statement of support for AIPAC and also for ZOA, Mister Witty. We tire of your straw dogging of Mondoweiss.
Tzipi Livni SUPPORTS J Street. Is that the kind of company you keep? Not I.
Anyone who doesn’t advocate bombing Iran right now is an anti-Semite.
Or, in Witty-speak, a “radical leftist.”
I am told that the Daily Show with Jon Stewart will be hosting two Palestinians peace activists.
Dr. Mustafa Barghouti and Anna Baltzer will be guests on Wednesday, October 28th.
Wow – That is a must see show.
Pingback: Your Israel lobby at work | JewPI
Still looking for statements of SUPPORT for anything substantive, mostly from Phil.
Who cares about the posse.
The fact that Phil is giving so much digital ink to J Street is support.
But that’s enough for you. You are against the “which side are you on?” formulation when it’s inrejection of Zionism, but here you are, playing “which side are you on?” when the issue is the Zionist-lite lobbying efforts of J Street.
As hypocritical as everyone expects you to be.
Yeah, we’re just ants at the picnic right Witty? (“Who cares about the posse.”) This is an “interesting” set of comments Witty. Reminds me of when I said – want J Street, you get Witty.
Larry Derfner’s been putting out some good articles lately. I wonder how the JPost is allowing such views. Perhaps the financial crisis warrants diversification.
Nolan, not everyone is as stupid and boisterous as the far right, they are the ones you have to watch out for (when you think of who JPost allows to write).
Goodness!
Never knew there are soooo many anti-semites who live in Israel.
‘Mondoweiss’ is journalism of a kind, although, it’s true, objectivity has never been its goal, Richard. Still, what’s to get so worked up about? Derfner and the lead article on Jim Lobe’s site make pretty clear what I suspect, that J Street does represent a radical departure from AIPAC. It couldn’t even muster any real criticism of Israeli conduct in Gaza. The Luban analysis is spot on: If J Street fails, Jewish-American support for Israel is, in large measure, at risk. That’s what J Street is about: maintaining what it sees as a predominant ‘Jewish’ influence over matters Israeli in US foreign affairs. The money quote:
The basic premise of J Street is that it is possible to be both liberal and pro-Israel. If the hardliners succeed in destroying J Street, and with it any viable outlet for liberal pro-Israel sentiment, they will force the younger generation of American Jews — who are overwhelmingly Obama Democrats — to choose between support for Israel and liberalism. No doubt some will choose Israel, but far more will choose liberalism. And in that case Israel will face a predicament far bleaker than whatever it fears from J Street.
J Street supports the ‘Jewish character’ of Israel, and its right to exist as a ‘Jewish State’. That position seems incompatible with liberal values to me.
that should read: does not represent a radical departure. Schmuck.
Yes marc b. , that is partially the reason I quoted Michel Warschawski’s comments in response to Uri Avnery on a similar post that Phil made about bashing J Street, you have to be able to discern what will bring “real” change and what will not. Wrapped in the apartheid (actually worse than apartheid) actions of Israel is the Jewish identity state –
“The political goal of Uri Avnery is “an Israeli-Palestinian peace”, i.e. a compromise that should satisfy the majority of the two communities, on a symmetrical basis (in another important article, he called it “truth against truth”). Such symmetry is the result of another important political assumption by Avnery: the conflict in Palestine is a conflict between two national movements with equal legitimacy.
Many supporters of the BDS campaign disagree on both assumptions: our goal is not peace as such, because “peace” in itself doesn’t mean anything (almost every war in modern history was initiated under the pretext of achieving peace). Peace is always the reflection of relation of forces when one side cannot impose on the other all that he considers their legitimate rights.
Unlike Uri, our goal is the fulfillment of certain values like: basic individual and collective rights, end of domination and oppression, decolonization, equality, and as-much-justice-as-possible. In that framework, we obviously may support “peace initiatives” that can reduce the level of violence and/or achieve a certain amount of rights. In our strategy, however, this support for peace initiatives is not a goal in itself but merely a means to achieve the above mentioned values and rights.
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.”
“former coMMenter October 22, 2009 at 12:48 pm
“Rearguard straw dog,” is that a football play?”
Lol! And I thought Witty was just using crude sexual innuendo to bash Phil.
Demanding that Phil (or the rest of us too?) take a loyalty oath of complete fealty to J Street is one of the most arrogant demands from Witty yet. Who does he think he is? Just amazing.
He’s against taking sides, syvanen. Except when he isn’t.
It’s unfortunate that this is being made out to be a “left-right” issue. American taxpayer support for Israeli inhumanity and the breadth of the Zionist Power Configuration over money, media, and politics in this country is much broader than liberals versus conservatives.
I am constantly amazed that Israeli leaders are so reluctant to make peace. Is it because of what happened to Yitzakh Rabin?
Israeli leaders don’t want peace because they don’t want to concede anything to the Palestinians. The un-peace isn’t hurting Israel, so why change things when they’re going so well?
Israel Arabs have trained pet Arabs to do their dirty work on the pro-Palestinian side: The Incredible Bulk Attacks Karin Friedemann.
Sorry for the typo in the previous comment.
Israel Advocates have trained pet Arabs to do their dirty work on the pro-Palestinian side: The Incredible Bulk Attacks Karin Friedemann.