Trending Topics:

Liberal Zionists and rightwingers shed differences in effort to save the Jewish state

Israel/Palestine
on 31 Comments
(Photo: Sun Sentinel)

(Photo: Sun Sentinel)

The Israel Policy Forum has sent a letter to Netanyahu supporting John Kerry’s framework. The signatories represent a “broad cross-section of the American Jewish community,” and the letter is a nudge-nudge to Netanyahu to do the right thing, because Israel is at risk:

We believe Secretary Kerry’s determined diplomatic effort offers an unprecedented opportunity to ensure Israel’s security, to enhance its prosperity, and to avoid the existential threat to the Jewish state posed by bi-nationalism.

What I find most remarkable is that Israel-right-or-wrong folks like Alan Dershowitz, Barney Frank, Lester Crown of the Council on Foreign Relations, Charles Bronfman (funder of Birthright Israel) and Michael Adler of AIPAC signed up alongside liberal Zionists like Peter Joseph and Roly Matalon and Neil Barsky (partnered with Bill Keller on a new liberal criminal-justice website). And let’s call David Axelrod a liberal Zionist. And all at the behest of a group that was once liberal Zionist and employed MJ Rosenberg.

What this demonstrates is that as the two-state paradigm crumbles inside our discourse, the lobby will cease to be divided and everyone will be “liberal Zionists,” in the sense that they are seeking to pressure the Israeli government, even AIPAC. And all will be “rightwing Zionists” in the sense that they’re raising fears about a binational state and saying nothing about Palestinian human rights. In short, we are approaching a period in which American Zionists will be called upon to say how important a Jewish state is to them, and if it’s important, put aside your differences and sing out in one voice. Roger Cohen’s angry denunciation of BDS is in this category; he really cares deeply about the Zionist dream.

My disappointment here is that good liberals like Barsky and Matalon are signing on. Though I predict that the great payoff of the period we’re approaching is that some of the liberal Zionists are going to shed their Zionism entirely– as Communists ran for the exits in the 1950s– because it’s anachronistic, or because it has never relieved Palestinian discrimination, for one second, or because they’ve been publicly shamed. And then good folks like Peter Beinart will ultimately come out against Zionism. His book of two years ago The Crisis of Zionism was prompted, he writes in the introduction, by a horrifying scene on the West Bank, from 2010. Well those conditions haven’t changed; families are still being torn apart and arrested because they dare to resist settlers’ incursions. And how long can an ideology be in crisis before you say it’s bankrupt?

Here’s the letter.

 

Dear Prime Minister Netanyahu:

At this critical juncture for the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, we write to express the sentiment of a broad cross-section of the American Jewish community in support of your continued efforts to pursue a negotiated resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on two states for two peoples.

As American advocates for a strong, Jewish and democratic Israel, we have been heartened by Secretary of State John Kerry’s extraordinary resolve to advance this process consistent with America’s unwavering commitment to Israel’s security. We believe Secretary Kerry’s determined diplomatic effort offers an unprecedented opportunity to ensure Israel’s security, to enhance its prosperity, and to avoid the existential threat to the Jewish state posed by bi-nationalism.

It is our hope that President Mahmoud Abbas will join you in demonstrating leadership to advance these talks. By moving forward at this time, we believe that the Palestinian leadership will be challenged to make important compromises, to end incitement and to demonstrate a genuine preparedness to live in peace alongside the nation-state of the Jewish people.

Mr. Prime Minister, at this pivotal moment of decision-making, we offer our support and encouragement as you move forward to pursue a lasting agreement that will protect Israel’s security as a homeland for the Jewish people.

Sincerely,

Daniel H. Adler Lawrence C. Gottlieb Alan J. Patricof
Karen R. Adler Fred Gould Richard Pearlstone
Michael M. Adler Laurence Greenwald Debra Pell
Harold Akselrad Jeffrey Gural Bettina Plevan
David Avital Rabbi Steve Gutow Isaac Putterman
David Axelrod David A. Halperin Steve Rabinowitz
Neil Barsky Harold R. Handler Debra L. Raskin
Robert A. Belfer J. Ira Harris Marcia Riklis
Jack C. Bendheim Andrew Hauptman Ed Robin
Karyn Bendit Oren Heiman Elliott H. Rose
Michael Berenbaum Jeff Hoffman Lenore Ruben
Howard M. Bernstein Rabbi Rick Jacobs Kerry Rubinstein
James J. Binns Alan S. Jaffe Rabbi Peter J. Rubinstein
Edward Blank Peter A. Joseph David Sable
Herb Blecker Rabbi Jeremy Kalmanofsky Richard A. Salomon
Edward Bleier Gerald D. Katcher David Sands
Ellen Block Nancy K. Kaufman Rabbi David Saperstein
Stanley Bogen Francine Klagsbrun Rabbi Yehuda Sarna
Charles R. Bronfman Samuel Klagsbrun Rabbi Marc Schneier
Matthew Bronfman Robert P. Kogod Jeff Schoenfeld
Steven M. Cohen Sidney Kohl Jeffrey Schwarz
Jerome Congress Jonathan Kolber William J. Schwartz
Rabbi Rachel Cowan Peter S. Kolevzon Jack Silver
Lester Crown Rabbi Irwin Kula Rabbi Joel Thal Simonds
Charles de Gunzburg Yehuda Kurtzer Rabbi Felicia L. Sol
Scott Delman Sheila Lambert Jeffrey R. Solomon
Alan M. Dershowitz Burton Lehman Ambassador Alan D. Solomont (ret.)
Thomas A. Dine Marvin Lender Alan P. Solow
Rabbi Denise L. Eger Rabbi Marion Lev Cohen Steven L. Spiegel
Joel S. Ehrenkranz Bruce Levenson C. Michael Spero
Warren Eisenberg Jacqueline Levine Joan E. Spero
Rabbi David Ellenson Hon. Mel Levine Marc Stanley
Ambassador Edward E. Elson Risa A. Levine Susan Stern
Alfred Engelberg Rabbi Robert Levine Judith Stern Peck
Rabbi Edward Feinstein Rabbi Joy Levitt Cary Sucoff
Irwin S. Field Geoffrey H. Lewis Joel D. Tauber
Rabbi Karen L. Fox Robert K. Lifton Roger Tilles
Hon. Barney Frank Deborah E. Lipstadt Bob Unger
Henry A. Freedman Dana Linden Jeanie Ungerleider
Brad Friedman Jonathan Lopatin Rabbi Burton L. Visotzky
Stanley Friedman William Mack James E. Walker, III
Rabbi Laura Geller Rabbi J. Rolando Matalon Howard Weingrow
Michael Gelman Peter May Melvyn I. Weiss
Susie Gelman Mike Medavoy Barry A. Weprin
Ernest Ginsberg Donald Meltzer Martin J. Whitman
Stanley P. Gold Robert B. Menschel Elaine Wolfensohn
Jeremy S. Goldberg  Robert Merson James D. Wolfensohn
H.P. Goldfield Arthur Miller Musa Yenni
Abner Goldstine Irving Morris Rabbi Eric Yoffie
E. Robert Goodkind Harriet Mouchly-Weiss Michael D. Young
Bob Gordon Burt Neuborne

 

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

31 Responses

  1. February 14, 2014, 10:21 am

    I don’t think much of this letter.

    • Krauss
      Krauss
      February 14, 2014, 2:15 pm

      Phil has it right.

      It’s not about the contents of the letter – the typical cramped “liberal” Zionist discourse that perpetuates Apartheid – but it is about the significance of how it came out, in what context and who signed up for it.

      The fact that the lobby has become merged into one is really a signal of an advancement of the conflict.

      Though I would dispute some things in the article; my principal view of Zionism is that while rhetorically they have differed, they are fundamentally the same. This may seem obvious at first to readers at this site, but what I mean is not just in the obvious sense of “we all ascribe to Zionism” but even if you look at sets of what appears from the outside to be very seperate and distinctly different ideological issues within Zionism, you see a remarkable convergence once you look at the de facto actions of the self-defined groups within the Zionist tent. These things only come into view if you really engage into the topic on an almost specialist basis.

      Which is precisely why the letter is so siginificant; because it basically means that the illusion of difference – that there really is such a thing as a “liberal” Zionism – is rapidly closing even for those who follow the debate on a detached distance. It helps us tremendously, as it officiates to the outside world what was previously known to people with intimate knowledge of the debate itself, sociologically and culturally.

      In this development Zionists from all walks of life become in public what they always were in private, and thus this convergence happens. It doens’t matter for us who already knew all this.

      But it does matter for the debate, that you see this convergence. It matters for the fence-sitters. You see hard-right people chumming it up with supposedly “leftists”. On Israel, we are all Tea Partiers.

      And it also matters for us, those who advocate genuine democracy and no racial supremacy. It matters for us as a signal, because it can sometimes be hard to measure progress when you’re so engaged in an issue on a day to day basis. And these things are hard to measure.

      By seeing this happen, our side can also understand that the Zionist groups are now moving into the turtle state, where they were all along on a core basis but were afforded to pretend otherwise before, when the pressure was less.

      This is not, to paraphrase Churchill, the beginning of the end, but rather the end of the beginning. BDS is mainstream. The Times’ has run several Op-Eds and news articles denouncing it as essentially Nazism in disguise. Again, this is the “liberal” newspaper.

      I used to be pessimistic about how long it would take until the 2SS paradigm would die. I no longer think we have to wait much more than after the 2016 election. If Kerry fails – which the logic of Zionism demands, because no essentially settler-colonialist ideology can accept a genuine agreement – then I highly doubt people will do much more than throw acid at the 51st attempt to restart the peace process, by a bunch of AIPAC-funded goons that Hillary has tried to appease by letting them run the show from the WH, as usual.

      This is when the fight gets real. The “liberals” will simply shed their flowery rhetoric and go for the extreme, they cannot any longer afford to pretend otherwise, because our side is too strong. Hence, Rudoren’s Nazi smear. Hence, Roger Cohen’s hysterical freakout.

      It will seem like they are stronger, at first, but when you understand why they act like they do, you understand it is fundamentally a sign of weakness, as they are forced to come out and forcefully defend Apartheid; to defend what they really believe, not what they pretend to believe.

      And I would have hoped I would have been as optimistic about Beinart as Phil, I fundamentally think he will choose Apartheid as he has done thus far until the very end. He’ll convert two minutes to midnight. But it is now that it counts and he has taken a very clear stance, just like Scarlett did. Should we forget that?

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 14, 2014, 8:48 pm

        Which is precisely why the letter is so siginificant; because it basically means that the illusion of difference – that there really is such a thing as a “liberal” Zionism – is rapidly closing even for those who follow the debate on a detached distance.

        Superbly put Krauss.

        I am really enjoying your comments here Krauss. Your comments have been outstanding, thought provocative and superbly articulated.

      • American
        American
        February 15, 2014, 11:45 am

        I agree.
        Deadly accurate on the merging.
        I do not consider this progress.
        But then we always knew Lib Zionism was always ultra I-First at heart…..just wears some lipstick.

    • Ecru
      Ecru
      February 15, 2014, 7:13 am

      Me neither. They’re in wilful denial (or more likely just lying through their teeth), take this bit:-

      “…support of your continued efforts to pursue a negotiated resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on two states for two peoples.”

      Who the hell actually believes Nutter-yahoo is actually negotiating in good faith, or that Israeli Jews want him to for that matter? I doubt even Kerry believes that tripe.

      “… to avoid the existential threat to the Jewish state posed by bi-nationalism…”

      If that’s what they truly think (and I can find no reason to doubt it) what are they doing living in a multicultural society? Each one who lives there should be expelled from the USA forthwith.

      “Palestinian leadership will be challenged to make important compromises, to end incitement and to demonstrate a genuine preparedness to live in peace alongside the nation-state of the Jewish people.”

      Notice how all the blame is being laid at the door of the Palestinians? How Israel’s vastly more numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity are just ignored? And all because Israelis crimes are perpetrated by Jews and hence must be OK to these oh so not at all “liberals.”

  2. justicewillprevail
    justicewillprevail
    February 14, 2014, 10:23 am

    Once Jews experience liberation from the moral blackmail that zionism has enforced on them, they will wonder how they stuck with such an extremist, segregationist, racist ideology for so long. Judaism existed long before zionism, and will continue to exist long after zionism is relegated to the dustbin of history along with slavery, Jim Crow, apartheid and all the other ethnic supremacy isolationist doctrines.

    • kalithea
      kalithea
      February 14, 2014, 10:19 pm

      “Once Jews experience liberation from the moral blackmail that zionism has enforced on them, they will wonder how they stuck with such an extremist, segregationist, racist ideology for so long.”

      Snap out of it! Never going to happen. You overestimate their ability to see beyond tribal ignorance. They’ll give up on Zionism kicking and screaming; and I’m not even referring to the settlers. Unfortunately no one has the guts to force them to see the light. Everyone’s scared of being labelled an “Anti-Semite” as the definition morphs into a muzzle for Justice herself. They’ll milk that AS trump card for all it’s worth.

      Palestinians are so screwed. Had they been occupied by anyone but the chosen; I’d say there’s hope; but the chosen have totally rigged the system against these wretched people and I just don’t see how they’re going to escape this yoke EXCEPT with an eventual demographic reversal; but you can count on the chosen having a contingency plan on ice to worm their way out of that certain reality.

      The more time passes, the more cynical, and yes, disgusted I become with the ugliness of it. Dealing with ignorance is the millstone that makes life on earth hell. The Palestinians will never be free of the Zionist scourge, and neither will the rest of us who care, be able to help free them of it. Sorry to say, the Chosen rigged it good and short of an act of God; I don’t see hope.

  3. annie
    annie
    February 14, 2014, 10:23 am

    By moving forward at this time, we believe that the Palestinian leadership will be challenged to make important compromises, to end incitement and to demonstrate a genuine preparedness to live in peace

    interesting wording. nothing explicit challenging netanyahu to make important compromises or to end incitement and to demonstrate a genuine preparedness to live in peace.

    what is in the framework israel “compromises”. compromising keeping illegal settlements? are there any settlement blocks on the chopping block? or just some isolated outposts? ending the occupation and control of palestinian resources? is that on the chopping block? what about jerusalem? is the framework a watered down contract to extend a watered down contract? and what kind of police action can we expect to stop the price tag attacks?

    i was just reading another excellent Mairav Zonszein article the other day w/videos http://972mag.com/watch-settlers-assault-israeli-in-west-bank-tell-soldiers-to-shoot/86933/ , of jewish fanatics attacking again, the soldiers doing nothing to deter the attack, again. there will be no retribution. does the framework stop this and why no wording to end jewish terrorist incitement?

    anyway, it is interesting the co joining of the zionists. it’s a smart move on aipacs part. will is move aipac to the left, no. the ‘liberals’ to the right? probably not. but image wise it makes for a united front and my hunch is there will be nothing worth signing in this ‘framework’ and it leaves the ball in abbas’s lap and makes him the rejectionists (as well as palestinians) if he doesn’t sign but offers nothing but longer delay if he does. a holding pattern w/no guarantee there will be any pullback on the occupation.

  4. W.Jones
    W.Jones
    February 14, 2014, 11:31 am

    By moving forward at this time, we believe that the Palestinian leadership will be challenged to make important compromises, to end incitement and to demonstrate a genuine preparedness to live in peace alongside the nation-state of the Jewish people.
    In 1947, their official position was that the Partition was good and that they were willing to “negotiate” about the refugees’ return. Then in 1967, they claimed they were about to be attacked, so they had to take over the West Bank.

    The above letter sets out a position like in 1947- that they are willing to accept the international decision about dividing the land and “negotiate” about the refugees. Then this puts the burden on the Palestinians if the Palestinians do not make the peace treaty that solidifies their refugees status. But the Israeli state apparently feels so strong now that it does not have to accept the international decision about dividing the land like it did in 1947, even on far more favorable terms- and even with the practical possibility that they could break it once more like in 1967.

  5. DaBakr
    DaBakr
    February 14, 2014, 11:59 am

    I don’t think much of this letter either. In my view the whole point hinges on the statement about the corrupt PA leader Abbas and ‘hoping’ he makes compromises….and so on. He either can not or won’t. He is hated by most Palestinians who are not bought and paid for by the PA. The letter is a meaningless exercise and may have more to do with Zionists trying to salvage their access to the Obama admin for the final years of his reign. In other words….if Hilary is coming, we better maintain our position. (in fact, this letter may even be a by-product of the fiasco Christie got himself involved with and knocking himself out of the running for next republican messiah hopeful)

  6. Krusty
    Krusty
    February 14, 2014, 12:10 pm

    Good! I say this as a liberal Zionist.

    The Palestinians deserve a state both morally and pragmatically. Israel cannot continue as an occupier, nor should it build any new settlements. The Kerry Framework is a helluva starting point, and the Obama administration has been smart to pursue this because it creates pressure on the Israeli government to come to the bargaining table. A reasonable deal which ensures the Zionist future is a good thing, it sets the stage for a durable solution that offers Palestinian independence, and it’s something most western Zionists (be they Jew or gentile) would likely support given the overwhelming general popularity and acceptance of Israel as a nation-state.

    A side effect which I think isn’t mentioned often enough is that the terms of the Kerry Framework (if as reported) are very likely acceptable to the vast swath of Israelis but not the right wing of the Likud-YB coalition government. That being the case, Bibi will be forced to choose between realigning with a leftward by accepting the framework (and potentially forming a new coalition with Labour when Jewish Home bolts upon acceptance, even with reservations) or losing the support of Western Zionists by rejecting an plainly reasonable deal. Either way, Netanyahu may well lose his government, and that would likely lead to a more moderate and Obama/Kerry-friendly leader like Yair Lapid or even Isaac Herzog.

    • kalithea
      kalithea
      February 14, 2014, 10:52 pm

      It boggles the mind. You really believe what you just wrote; or is your enthusiasm designed to play us? I say the latter! I managed to plod through your spiel and laughed at how delusional it all sounds.

      “I say this as a liberal Zionist.” Huh? What’s that? LOL! You Zionists are all alike, and that’s the real problem! So this kumbaya moment you’ve cooked up amongst yourselves was pretty predictable because all along you’ve all been on one side and one side only: the “how to screw the Palestinians by making them believe they’re getting a deal” side.

  7. ivri
    ivri
    February 14, 2014, 1:32 pm

    It is as clear as the sunshine to me that in the real moment of truth Left, Right and Center in the Jewish community will circle the wagons. The nation is too small and the history too traumatic to allow otherwise. When Judge Goldstone understood what is at stake (with other people involved) he retracted. And that`s what happened with Benny Morris, who became an icon for the European anti-Israel camp by his purely academic studies (because they happened to serve their case) – he did the same turn when he became aware of the political implications for Israel.
    Generally, the Israel saga is uniquely characterized by a big group with vehemently anti-Israel views, to the point of obsession, and another group, much smaller but with relatively many top infleuntial figures, comprising Jews and (many) non-Jews (few in Europe but plenty in the US and Canada), who are not less committed in their total and dedicated support of Israel. That`s surely the stuff that real historical dramas are made off.

    • kalithea
      kalithea
      February 14, 2014, 11:19 pm

      Yes, it’s like they’re creating fake drama/interest to distract from something that is hollow, like their “empathy”. In the end, they get cold feet when it means a real departure from the herd mentality of the tribe and they’re unwilling to do what’s morally right. They unwilling to go the distance; because they’re not real. Really they’re all on the same page, but some of them want us believe they “heart” the other and respect the truth to mitigate our outrage against what the majority of the tribe is doing. When in fact, they’d throw grannies under the bus for their precious Zionism never mind the truth.

      It’s the Goldstone’s among them that play us best by pretending they respect justice, fact and truth over Zionism.

  8. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    February 14, 2014, 3:01 pm

    ” And then good folks like Peter Beinart will ultimately come out against Zionism. His book of two years ago The Crisis of Zionism was prompted, he writes in the introduction, by a horrifying scene on the West Bank, from 2010. Well those conditions haven’t changed; families are still being torn apart and arrested because they dare to resist settlers’ incursions. And how long can an ideology be in crisis before you say it’s bankrupt?”

    Phil when are you going to give up this effort to canonize Beinart. He must be a good friend of yours. He knew long ago what was going on in the conflict. Great that he finally stepped up to the plate but at an opportunistic time and all about saving the state of Israel. I don’t believe for one second that all of a sudden Beinart had an epiphany and felt extreme compassion for Palestinians. This letter above is all about saving the state of Israel as a “Jewish ” state. Nothing else.

    You say it clearly here “And all will be “rightwing Zionists” in the sense that they’re raising fears about a binational state and saying nothing about Palestinian human rights.”

    • kalithea
      kalithea
      February 14, 2014, 11:23 pm

      You have it right. Beinart and “compassion for the Palestinians” sounds awkward because it’s loaded with HYPOCRISY.

  9. Chu
    Chu
    February 14, 2014, 3:02 pm

    (just read) Roger Cohen’s piece:

    “The so-called right of return of the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians driven out in the 1948 war (whose descendants now number in the millions) cannot be exercised, any more than the Jews of Baghdad and Cairo have deeds to return home. There can, and should be, agreed compensation for the dispossessed, but there cannot be a reversal of history. The “right” is in fact a claim.”

    Was this the same guy that moderated the debate between Weiner and Brian Baird? How far we’ve come! Why do the liberal Zionists always go soft in the end? This (sort-of) reversal from Cohen seems reminiscent of Finkelstein. Why does this happen? It’s a bad sign because it look like they are the good cop, until they are forced to be the bad cop. Can they understand how this looks from the outside of the debate?

    • Chu
      Chu
      February 14, 2014, 3:08 pm

      also: Cohen (in closing):

      “A Jewish national home is needed. History demonstrated that. It must now be reinvented. For that, the corrosive occupation has to end and with it the settlement industry.B.D.S. is a wake-up call. I oppose it because *I DO NOT TRUST IT. That does not mean, as Lapid intimated, that Israel can ignore its message.”

      In the article, he said he doesn’t trust the 3rd component of BDS.
      1.Its stated aim is to end the occupation.
      2. secure “full equality” for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel.
      3. fight for the right of return of all Palestinian refugees.

      He concludes that he does not trust BDS, but he is in accord with the first two stated principles of BDS – end the occupation and secure full equality for Palestinians.
      If he seems to agree with 2/3 rds of BDS why does he not trust it? Wouldn’t saying ‘I support BDS except for the right of return’ be a more fitting tone to end to for Cohen to conclude?

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 14, 2014, 11:06 pm

        If he seems to agree with 2/3 rds of BDS why does he not trust it? Wouldn’t saying ‘I support BDS except for the right of return’ be a more fitting tone to end to for Cohen to conclude?

        You raise a very good question. I would love to see Cohen being forced to answer it. I suspect that a truthful answer would reveal that deep down, he would prefer to see the status quo maintained than a resolution to the conflict.

        As we have seen with Beinart, Coen will check his liberal values at the door when it comes to Israel, but rather than admit it, he maligns BDS for having ulterior motives.

        He already admits he’s opposed to ROR, so he’s already on the record as putting Jewish supremacy above human rights for non Jews.

        It’s not BDS he doesn’t trust, it’s peace and justice itself. He fears if the 2 of the 3 goals of BDS (those he supports) are achieved, so might the third, therefore he won’t risk it.

        Yet another example of how Zionism corrupts the soul as well as the mind.

      • Chu
        Chu
        February 18, 2014, 2:00 pm

        I wonder if this was always Cohen’s position or was he backed into the corner and had to come clean on what he believes in? That’s often the issue of soft-core Israel supporters – they fight for something until it’s too uncomfortable for them to defend and back away. I’m thinking of Fink (sort of), or Wash Post’s Richard Cohen, many more in this class though.

    • kalithea
      kalithea
      February 14, 2014, 11:41 pm

      “Why does this happen?” Simple: THEY’RE ALL THE SAME. There is no space between them when it comes to Zionism. But they have to feed us the “compassion” crock to make Zionism look good, sometimes even hiding the fact that they’re Zionists so as not to show their hand or disillusion us before we start buying into their bull. They rigged everything against the Palestinians to the last duplicitous drop!

      • Chu
        Chu
        February 18, 2014, 2:07 pm

        I think when the layers (of the debate) are stripped away and you see the core issue, to the Jewish people in the world it’s often about protecting fellow tribal members
        – and since the indoctrination of being a victim for thousands of years [etc.], makes them feel guilty of contributing to the denigration of the tribe (and/or Israel), they will always defend it and draw a line. The victimhood coupled with arrogance and chosen sense of specialness is what makes the entire thing especially smugly corrupt.

  10. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    February 14, 2014, 3:08 pm

    ” By moving forward at this time, we believe that the Palestinian leadership will be challenged to make important compromises, to end incitement and to demonstrate a genuine preparedness to live in peace alongside the nation-state of the Jewish people.”

    In this letter again we see Jews putting all of the blame to truly negotiate on the Palestinians. As if Israel has always been ready to deal as they have continued to expand illegal settlements for decades..DECADES.

    Yes Bibi we know these illegal efforts mean nothing nothing. You are innocent when it comes to inciting the Palestinians. Just another show of goodwill Bibi.

    Israel to Implant 9-Storey Ultra-Orthodox Seminary in Palestinian East Jerusalem
    http://www.juancole.com/2014/02/orthodox-palestinian-jerusalem.html

  11. Whizdom
    Whizdom
    February 14, 2014, 6:12 pm

    The comments in YNET regarding this letter are brutal (against the signers). If Dersh Bronfman and Adler aren’t sufficiently zealous, then it bodes poorly for the occupation

  12. kalithea
    kalithea
    February 15, 2014, 12:51 am

    Just as democracy and justice are incompatible with Zionism, so too is liberalism! There is ONLY ZIONISM. There is no liberal or right-wing Zionism. Zionism is Zionism; above democracy, justice and political persuasion, because all these threaten the survival of Zionism even one’s humanity! When you embrace Zionism, you must be willing to check integrity at the door. Zionists will sacrifice their integrity in a heartbeat for Zionism, because even conscience is a threat. Many view the Palestinians as sub-human, while others push them out of their mind as a non-issue in the context of Zionism’s significance. And then there are those whose compassion for Palestinians is eventually out-ranked by their loyalty to Zionism. The rights and needs of Palestinians don’t even register against the need for Zionism.

    “Liberal” Zionists will have you believe that they hate the settlements; that the settlements are a threat to Israel but this is the biggest fallacy ever. The truth is they don’t have the stomach to turn on their kin over this issue and never will; they’re all in it together and their loyalty is only to Zionism with all its baggage of injustice and come what may. Just look at what Scarjo did, how she justified it and the greater cause she was willing to sacrifice on behalf of those settlements! They’re all one under Zionism compromising their integrity that they conveniently shove aside because it threatens their delusion.

    Zionism was flawed from day one, therefore it was destined to evolve into something morally grotesque and so-called liberal Zionists are there to mitigate it’s grotesqueness by making everyone believe there’s a kinder gentler side to Zionism, that never shows up because IT DOESN’T EXIST. So who do you trust when it comes to the fight for Palestinian rights and freedom? Only individuals who clearly admit they are ANTI-Zionist, period!

  13. Ecru
    Ecru
    February 15, 2014, 7:02 am

    “My disappointment here is that good liberals like Barsky and Matalon are signing on.”

    Then obviously they were never particularly “good Liberals” in the first place. As for Beinart and the others shedding their Zionism, wasn’t it Beinart who said given the choice he’d shed his (pseudo) “liberalism” before he shed Zionism? Sorry but “liberal” Zionist is like saying “anti-racist” KKK’er – a contradiction in terms.

  14. weareone
    weareone
    February 15, 2014, 9:51 am

    This article by Sharmine Narwani, written in 2012, seems to cut through all of the discourse to the heart of the issue: “Excuse Me, But Israel Has No Right To Exist” http://www.english.al-akhbar.com.

  15. wondering jew
    wondering jew
    February 15, 2014, 11:09 am

    And how long can an ideology be in crisis before you say it’s bankrupt?

    Very few of the communists who shed their communism in the 50’s felt that their decision would negatively impact the citizens of the Soviet Union. Beinart’s support for Zionism is personal rather than political, that is, shedding Zionism would mean advocacy of negative impact policies on the Jews of Israel, to whom Beinart feels kinship. If you and the other antiZionists create a belief in a nonZionist future that doesn’t threaten the Jews of Israel, then it would just be a matter of shedding ideology. But you cannot begin to do that, because there is no reason to believe that the nonZionist future means a Liberal Palestine and not a Hamas Palestine.

    • American
      American
      February 15, 2014, 11:36 am

      ‘If you and the other antiZionists create a belief in a nonZionist future that doesn’t threaten the Jews of Israel, then it would just be a matter of shedding ideology. But you cannot begin to do that, because there is no reason to believe that the nonZionist future means a Liberal Palestine and not a Hamas Palestine.”..yonah

      Neither the anti zioinst nor world are under any obligation to unsure or protect the Jews of Israel–particulary from their own selves and crimes.
      It is our job and the worlds job to bring some justice to I/P —-nothing else.
      You took your chances on what would happen when you moved into Palestine and stole their land—you can take your chances on what would happen if you returned their land.

    • Cliff
      Cliff
      February 15, 2014, 12:17 pm

      Wondering Jew

      Who here @MW, supports a Hamas Palestine?

      There is already a Hamas Israel, which you and the other ‘cult of Zion’ members clearly support.

Leave a Reply