Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 8 (since 2010-01-30 03:34:11)

jimdonnellan

Website: http://www.criticalpathenterprises.com

Showing comments 8 - 1
Page:

  • Woman removed from Air France flight for not being Jewish
  • Sen. Cardin tells how he and Hillary Clinton muscled foreign ambassadors to block 'anti-American' Palestinian statehood
    • jimdonnellan March 29, 2012 at 8:19 am with 1 replies

      Powerful. This piece plus the Ben-Gurion letter. Why did we not know this stuff seventy years ago?

      Can anyone make specific what the good Senator meant when he said (especially the anti-American bit):

      "Now understand we want peace in the Middle East, we want the Palestinians to succeed. But they need to understand that when they do things that are anti-American, going against the leadership of our country, which is critically important to move forward in the peace process, that we’re going to take note of that. And there will be consequences to their actions. I think that had some impact also."

  • 'I didn't say I liked Beinart's book' -- J Street head sells his star guest out to his antagonist, Goldberg
    • jimdonnellan March 25, 2012 at 1:23 pm

      Shingo: Seeing as neither of us can mind read, your guess is as irrelevant as mine.

      JD: I couldn't agree more. This goes to the heart of the matter. We never really know what another is thinking unless we ask, directly and pointedly.

      Shingo: One can only made judgement based on actions.

      JD: Per your point above, such judgments are irrelevant. Good guesses, maybe, but all too often they are mere psychological projections of our own angst. (I'm the only exception to that rule that I know of. Perfection is tough to live with though.) I do agree, however, that certain behavior violates universal values and justifies a reaction - constraint initially, not punishment (logical consequences naturally follow). Israel has violated these norms repeatedly.

      It is for this reason I would focus on any interaction with Jeremy on Israel's behavior and ask him to share his thinking. I would be very specific. I would not threaten or cajole, simply inquire. With Jeremy, the intellectual and moral dilemma that is Israel needs to be responded to and is found in my favorite Ben-Gurion comment:

      Ben-Gurion: "If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs.
      We come from Israel, it's true, but 2000 years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: … we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? "

      I'd probably start there and move forward. I would want to know how his pro-Israel pro-Peace perspective is reconciled with that moral reality.

      I would do the same with AIPAC. I would not accept bs for a response (Oren is a master at avoiding the underlying causes). The difference between the two is Jeremy if far more approachable, but it is AIPAC that needs to be engaged.

      By the way, how do you shade the comment you are responding to. Very effective.

    • jimdonnellan March 25, 2012 at 8:23 am

      Some questions:

      shingo: J Street has since become a cats paw for AIPAC, and reached out to the right.
      jd: Has AIPAC invited Peter Beinart to speak at their annual conference?

      shingo: Rubbish. The audience is tiny, impotent and ineffectual.
      jd: not sure I understand which audience you are referring to. Those are not the words that came to me when I saw this audience. So please elaborate.

      shingo: No, he doesn’t come close. Ben Ami is 10% along the way.
      jd: in an atmosphere so governed by "right think", 10% could be considered huge. What would that 10% mean in Stalinist Russia, North Korea, Mao's China etc

      shingo: He’s a coward because he will not debate BDS with anyone but Jews.He has made this abundantly clear... He’s a fraud because he is prescribing the same policies that have been in place for 45 years and insisting that this will lead to change.

      jd: I'm not sure the labels of coward and fraud shed much light on his thinking or more importantly why he thinks that way. You are applying a litmus test but I'd rather hear from the "horse's mouth" so to speak on his exact thinking on his positions. That is, why he has taken this path as opposed to the alternatives - AIPAC on the right and BDS, etc on the left.

      Just curious: Has he ever been invited to appear before an AIPAC national gathering?

      There is much that is not understood about the thinking behind AIPAC's posture as well as J Street or the Israeli government for that matter. There is a force there, a fear perhaps, that is so strong it leads to positions that in other contexts they would consider absurd. Menachem Daum has come the closest for me of shedding light on the matter, quite powerfully in Hiding and Seeking as well as in clips for his next offering. These are not dumb people, and other labels simply don't work for me. I want to know why. If someone here can shed light, please do.

    • jimdonnellan March 24, 2012 at 3:13 pm

      "it was bad form. cowardly imho. i am not saying every position he takes is cowardly, i don’t follow j street"

      - I don't know about that.

      What I do know is that the first time he appeared in a Boston synagogue he was picketed on the outside and was the only speaker inside who came even close to suggesting there was a Palestinian point of view - an audience member rose up and shouted at him at the mere mention of such a possibility.

      He identifies, at one level, with - and believes it as far as I can tell - the point of view of his audience, which has an extremely low tolerance of anyone who questions the legitimacy of Israel. His accomplishment is remarkable in bringing a level of sanity into the mainstream. I'm personally delighted that he does not completely agree with Beinart, not because I agree with him - I don't - but because this brings out into the open a dialogue that had not existed for so long on this subject and in front of the very audience that needs to unerstand the reality on the ground.

      Is he a crusader? No. Do I look forward to the day when AIPAC invites Phil Weiss or Norm Finkelstein or Michael Lerner to speak. Yes, but it will probably be a cold day in hell when that happens ... but we can still hope.

      Jeremy at least approximates that ideal. I didn't even consider attending their last conference. After today, if I could, I'd be on a plane to Washington in a heartbeat to see how this one plays out and to participate in the dialogue that will inevitably follow.

    • jimdonnellan March 24, 2012 at 12:52 pm with 7 replies

      Don't hold back now. Tell me how you really feel.

      But tell me: if he is a coward and a fraud, why would he invite Beinart in the first place? Is he also a masochist? What would be the possible gain for J Street to have him in its midst?

      I don't argue the duplicity of the Israeli government when its mouthpieces (Oren, Gold, AIPAC, et al) blatantly misrepresent the reality. But I've never seen any of them - actually anyone - even come close to saying what Jeremy is willing to say in a synagogue filled with true believers and get away with it.

      That does not mean that his solution is the right one. Clearly the idea of moving settlements en masse is a logistical impossibility, but his organization represents a baby step away from orthodoxy. That is clearly not enough nor is it the best way to articulate the ultimate vision, but it does bring to the forefront a level of dialogue that did not exist before. The intellectual and moral foundations of Israel were both anachronistic and indefensible. They were a product of history that believed such arrogance was justifiable. That is unraveling; tragically so, but it is. J Street approximates the level of openess needed, but it does not fulfill it.

    • jimdonnellan March 24, 2012 at 8:11 am with 10 replies

      Jeremy Ben-Ami comments on Beinart's NY Times OP ED:

      A Reflection on Peter Beinart’s New York Times Op-Ed

      March 19, 2012 at 3:35 pm

      By Jeremy Ben-Ami

      Peter Beinart’s op-ed in The New York Times this morning will undoubtedly raise more than blood pressure and eyebrows in the Jewish community.

      It immediately raises pressure on J Street and other organizations over giving a platform to Peter after he has explicitly called for boycotts and other civil protests against Israeli settlements and settlers.

      So let me say up front and with resounding clarity: J Street is thrilled to host a passionate Zionist like Peter Beinart at any time and any place – even as we disagree with some of the actions that Peter is calling for.

      It’s critical for the Jewish community to hear Peter’s clear diagnosis of the problem Israel is facing. The country’s Jewish, democratic future is at risk from, as he puts it, “the jaws of a pincer.” Israel is trapped between those on the right who claim all the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean as legitimately Israeli and those on the left in the Global BDS movement who question the legitimacy of Israel itself even within the pre-1967 Green Line.

      I share Peter’s sense of acute urgency over the need to end the occupation, establish borders for Israel and resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a two-state solution. If we don’t, both left and right will push Israel into a “one-state nightmare” – forced to choose between its Jewish and its democratic character.

      I also agree with the distinction Peter draws between the legitimacy of Israel within the Green Line and the illegitimacy of what’s happening over the Green Line.

      I don’t, however, agree with Peter that pressure on settlers and settlements through targeted boycotts and other measures will lead them to change course.

      I think the ideologues driving the settlement enterprise – not necessarily the settlers themselves – will never change their views. Pressure will only reinforce their belief that the whole world is against them, causing them to dig in even more deeply.

      I believe that the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement should focus on borders, not boycotts, as it is a recognized border that will save Israel’s democratic and Jewish character. ...

      JD: His position reflects openness, even when there are points of disagreement. It also reflects appreciation for those aspects of Peter's perspective he considers very important to a peaceful outcome - i.e. defined borders, Israel as a Jewish democracy left intact, "ending the settlement enterprise", etc.

      He ends by saying: "I couldn’t be more excited that the J Street Conference provides space for voices that may disagree with J Street on this point. We are not about to apply an ideological litmus test to ensure that every speaker at our conference agrees with every position we take."

      This is quite different than throwing him under the bus, is it not? Or, am I missing something?

  • notes on my racism (part 1)
    • jimdonnellan July 10, 2010 at 9:05 pm

      Quite powerful. This one moved me.

      However, don't feel too bad. Having been raised a Roman Catholic, I was taught that everyone else - Protestant, Jew, Hindu, et al - was going to hell. Even we weren't guaranteed easy passage through the pearly gates. It is the nature of the human ego to look down on others who are different and judge them inferior. It is our first order response to difference of any type.

      It's kind of sad, but that is how we think. But we do know better.

Showing comments 8 - 1
Page:

Comments are closed.