Former AIPAC aide calls J Street fleas and liars

Israel/Palestine
on 18 Comments

Josh Block used to work at AIPAC (and before that for Edward Kennedy). He just left the organization and, freed from institutional restraint, teed off on J Street, and J Street knocked him back. And now Block has gone back after J Street in a note to Adam Kredo of Washington Jewish Week. There’s a lot of vicious invective here that I pass along because it is so repulsive. I wonder what Block is afraid of?


a group proven to be as duplicitous, deceitful and outright dishonest they have been exposed to be….

Virtually every reporter in the last three years who has spoken to Jstreet has been lied to. How many members of Congress have gotten the same treatment? These aren’t questions that come from nowhere. They are the direct result of Jstreet’s conduct and pattern of deception….

when you lie down with dogs, you get fleas. You can kill the fleas, but the treatment is unpleasant and it’s not cost free. The question candidates in competitive races will be asking themselves is this: IS it worth it to lie down with dogs if all you get is fleas!? The answer, I predict, will increasingly be no, it’s not worth it. Unless, of course, you’re actually not pro-Israel.

 

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

18 Responses

  1. Kathleen
    November 5, 2010, 9:44 am

    “I wonder what Block is afraid of?” Facts/truth

  2. Justice Please
    November 5, 2010, 9:50 am

    “Unless, of course, you’re actually not pro-Israel.”

    Heaven forbid we have someone who is pro-peace in high office!

    • Bandolero
      November 5, 2010, 2:50 pm

      There will come a time, when candidates will be hiding it if they are pro-Israel. It will be just like claiming to be pro-apartheid or pro-mafia. And it will come soon, because Israel is continuosly doing all what is needed to make it happen.

  3. Scott
    November 5, 2010, 1:50 pm

    His conception of Churches for Middle East Peace is really loopy. It would be interesting if they did support BDS. As it is, it is a fitting, –cautious, earnest and two state solution oriented partner– for J Street.

  4. Sumud
    November 5, 2010, 2:31 pm

    Josh Block vs Stormin’ Norman [Finkelstein], on Democracy Now after Gilad Shalit was kidnapped in 2006:

    Part 1:
    link to youtube.com
    Part2:
    link to youtube.com

    This is about 6 months after Israel’s pseudo-withdrawal from Gaza, interesting that Norman mentions the 7-9,000 projectiles Israel had fired into Gaza in those 6 months, vs. ~1,000 Qassam rockets, and the resulting disproportionate deaths. It disproves the oft-repeated statement that Israel withdrew from Gaza to “give peace a chance”.

    • yonira
      November 5, 2010, 3:32 pm

      Finkelstein is flat out lying. So Israel withdrew from Gaza (not sure how it is a pseudo withdrawal) and then continued to fire into Gaza with zero provocation? umm not exactly. I am not sure why Israel is expected to sit back and let Hamas/IJ/etc bombard it with rockets.

      After Israel’s disengagement from Gaza, the number of confirmed rocket strikes against Israel increased by more than 500 percent.
      link to jcpa.org

      Attacks began in 2001. Since then, more than 8,600 rockets have hit southern Israel, nearly 6,000 of them since Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in August 2005

      link to news.bbc.co.uk

      • Shingo
        November 5, 2010, 4:24 pm

        No Finkelstein not lying.

        Yes, Israel fired 7,700 shells into Gaza beginning from the day it withdre until May of the following year.

        “So Israel withdrew from Gaza (not sure how it is a pseudo withdrawal) and then continued to fire into Gaza with zero provocation?”

        Sure, it woudln;t be the first time, like say or example, when Isrel carried out an provoked attack on Gaza on Novermber 4th 2008.

        “I am not sure why Israel is expected to sit back and let Hamas/IJ/etc bombard it with rockets.”

        So Israel starts a fight, and the Palestinians respond, and then you Zionists expect us to believe that history begins on the day that Israel is attacked.

        “After Israel’s disengagement from Gaza, the number of confirmed rocket strikes against Israel increased by more than 500 percent. ”

        After Israel’s disengagement from Gaza, Israeli shells strikes on Gaza went from zero to more than 8000 in one year alone.

        “Since then, more than 8,600 rockets have hit southern Israel, nearly 6,000 of them since Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in August 2005″‘

        Isrel fired that many shells within 12 months. The number was at 16,000 by 2008.

      • Shingo
        November 5, 2010, 4:26 pm

        “So Israel withdrew from Gaza (not sure how it is a pseudo withdrawal”

        It’s very well explained in the one and only comprehensive scholarly history of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, “Lords of the Land”, by Idith Zertal and Akiva Eldar .

        “After Israel withdrew it’s forces from Gaza, in August 2005, the ruined territory was not released for even a single day from Israel’s military grip, or from the price of the occupation that the inhabitants pay every day. Israel left behind scotched earth, devastated services, and people with nearly a present or a future. The Jewish settlements were destroyed in an ungenerous move by an unenlightened occupier, which in fact continues to control the territory and kill and harass it’s inhabitants, by means of it’s formidable military might.”

      • Shingo
        November 5, 2010, 4:47 pm

        BTW Yonira, here is the HRW

        “The IDF has fired more than 7,700 shells at northern Gaza since the Israeli withdrawal in September 2005, creating a problem of unexploded ordnance in heavily populated areas.”‘

        link to hrw.org

      • potsherd
        November 5, 2010, 5:01 pm

        Why are Gazans expected to sit back and let Israel bombard them with everything?

      • Shingo
        November 5, 2010, 6:06 pm

        “Why are Gazans expected to sit back and let Israel bombard them with everything?”

        Because by definition, Israel is always defending itself.

      • Sumud
        November 5, 2010, 5:05 pm

        yonira – what is Finkelstein’s lie? Are you saying Israel didn’t fire 7-9,000 projectile into Gaza in the 6 months after the pseudo-withdrawal?

        Tell me, did Gazans have complete sovereignty over their borders, sea- and air-space after “disengagement”? The well known answer to that is why I called it a pseudo-withdrawal. The occupation continues. The UN and international community agrees that this is the case (or rather, I agree with them).

    • Shingo
      November 5, 2010, 6:09 pm

      “Josh Block vs Stormin’ Norman [Finkelstein], on Democracy Now after Gilad Shalit was kidnapped in 2006:”

      Notice how Block can’t being himself to refer to Fink by his name? It’s the same behavior that Dersh exibited in his recent debate when he had his (latest) meltdown.

    • Avi
      November 6, 2010, 12:05 am

      Josh Block vs Stormin’ Norman [Finkelstein], on Democracy Now after Gilad Shalit was kidnapped in 2006

      Sumud,

      Shalit was captured. The terminology is important because it characterizes the exact nature of the act. He was captured in the course of carrying out his government sanctioned duties as a soldier of an occupying army that had imposed a siege in the spring prior.

      The siege on a population of 1.5 million Gazans was and remains Collective Punishment and is in clear violation of international law.

      Again, the siege was imposed around March or April of that year, and Shalit was captured in the summer. Israeli hasbara often claims the opposite.

      If someone were truly kidnapped, however, it was several Palestinians, two of whom had nothing to do with any organization — Chomsky has mentioned them in several of his talks because their kidnapping from the heart of Gaza immediately preceded the capture of Shalit. They were two brothers whom Israel kidnapped from Gaza and disappeared them into its prison system.

      Professor Chomsky wrote:

      Shalit’s capture is a prominent issue in the West, another indication of Hamas’s criminality. Whatever one thinks about it, it is uncontroversial that capture of a soldier of an attacking army is far less of a crime than kidnapping of civilians, exactly what Israeli forces did the day before the capture of Shalit, invading Gaza city and kidnapping two brothers, then spiriting them across the border where they disappeared into Israel’s prison complex. Unlike the much lesser case of Shalit, that crime was virtually unreported and has been forgotten, along with Israel’s regular practice for decades of kidnapping civilians in Lebanon and on the high seas and dispatching them to Israeli prisons, often held for many years as hostages.

  5. yourstruly
    November 5, 2010, 4:21 pm

    Any guesses as to how wide and deep, the Zionist’s depression (regardless of whether he or she is of J Street, AIPAC or some other persuasion) is going to be, once Palestine is free? Could this explain the Zionist’s persistent refusal even to listen to the Palestinian narrative – the need to shut it out, lest the pain of cognitive dissonance do them in? If that’s so, the Zionist should consider taking up a hobby, raising a pet, or doing whatever else it might take for him or her to avoid thoughts about the inevitable that lies ahead..

    • Shingo
      November 6, 2010, 12:47 am

      ” If that’s so, the Zionist should consider taking up a hobby, raising a pet, or doing whatever else it might take for him or her to avoid thoughts about the inevitable that lies ahead..”

      The obvious hobby would be for them to put in the white hoods and capes. In the case of some of them, it will be a case of pulling their old ones out of storage.

  6. Shingo
    November 6, 2010, 12:50 am

    “when you lie down with dogs, you get fleas. ”

    So true. Many J Street members would have previously been AIPAC members.

    • Walid
      November 6, 2010, 7:20 am

      I see J Street being more of the same since it’s against “parts” of the occupation at the same time it’s against BDS because it will ultimately hurt Israel and the 2 states option.

      J Street says of itself: “We oppose the occupation of the West Bank and the expansion and entrenchment of settlements there. We also oppose encroachment on Palestinian areas of East Jerusalem which must be part of a future Palestinian capital if a two-state outcome is to be achieved. We support loosening the blockade of Gaza, since – in addition to the humanitarian concerns it raises – Israel has smarter, more effective ways of ensuring security through monitoring rather than blocking imports into Gaza at secure crossings. We oppose governmental and NGO expenditures beyond the green line to the extent that their purpose is to expand and deepen the settlement enterprise. ”

      In plain English, J Street doesn’t mind the annexing (stealing) by Israel of 70 sq mi of land adjacent to Jerusalem but it would want Israel to take its hands off some Palestinian neighbourhoods in that city. It doesn’t want the blockade of Gaza to end but to be simply “loosened”. This is fancier skating that what you’d see at the Ice Capades. Reading between the lines, J Street calls for the use of more vaseline by Israel. The rabid AIPAC is coming across as the more sincere of the two. J Street wants to end the occupation to save Israel’s ass, not because it has a sense of any justice due to the Palestinians.

Leave a Reply