Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditFor too long now, when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and other issues of war and peace in the Middle East, the mainstream media and too many politicians in the US have deferred to the most extreme right-wing positions represented by organizations such as The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and Christian Zionist communities.
In fact, there is a far more open and dynamic debate about the peace process in Israel than in the US. (For example, over 64 percent of Israelis favor direct talks with Hamas.) But a new lobby organization and PAC – J Street – aims to end the right-wing monopoly and give voice to the substantial number of Jewish and non-Jewish Americans with more moderate views on these issues.
Executive Director Jeremy Ben-Ami told me last week, "The important thing is that there's a diversity of opinion in the American Jewish community. There's no monolithic view… there's an argument. And that's what J Street's about – it's about the fact that we deserve representation too in this debate. We understand that there are a substantial number of American Jews who hold very right-wing positions when it comes to Israel and they should have a voice in the public policy process. But there's also a very substantial number of American Jews who hold very moderate views on Israel and they also need a voice, and we should have that argument just like we do on any other public policy issue without resorting to name-calling, without labeling one side antisemitic or self-hating Jews and all of that. We should discuss the merits."
Ben-Ami finds the knee-jerk reaction to people expressing views that differ from organizations such as AIPAC troubling and an anomaly in Jewish culture and the intellectual tradition. "If you have three Jews over for brunch on a Sunday and you say, ‘What flavor bagels should I buy?' you'll end up buying 10 bagels because people will have all sorts of different opinions," he said. "[But] if you ask, ‘What do you think about Israel?' you're only allowed to give one opinion? It's just not Jewish. It's not part of the fabric of our society – that we don't argue, that we don't have different opinions, that we don't see the nuance. I mean, that's what it means to be Jewish, right?"
Since its launch just over two months ago, JStreetPAC has already issued its inaugural round of endorsements of Congressional candidates, including: Rep. Charles Boustany (LA-07), Darcy Burner (Candidate, WA-08), Rep. Stephen Cohen (TN-09), Rep. Donna Edwards (MD-04), Debbie Halvorson (Candidate, IL-11), Mary Jo Kilroy (Candidate, OH-15), and Dennis Shulman (Candidate, NJ-05).
"Never before have candidates received tangible political support for agreeing that pursuing both a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and aggressive diplomacy to solve political conflicts in the Middle East should be central to American foreign policy," Ben-Ami said. "These endorsements – and the entire J Street initiative – will open up much-needed political space needed for honest discussion of American foreign policy and for debate over what policies are in fact in the best interests of both the United States and of Israel."
Ultimately, that is what J Street aims to do – create the necessary political space in the US for our representatives to take strong, pro-peace positions that differ from the hawkish status quo we have seen over the last decade. J Street ran a full-page ad in the New York Times calling out mainstream pro-Israel organizations on their silence in the wake of the Gaza ceasefire, talks with Syria and overtures to Lebanon. J Street also initiated a letter-writing campaign on the same issue.
"The whole thrust of [the J Street] effort is not quite yet understood which is that it's a political effort," Ben-Ami said. "At the end of the day this isn't really about the substance of the issue because there's not a substance problem here…. Most members of congress actually get the issue now, and they understand what we should be doing. There's just no political space for anybody to actually say it out loud and start to lead. And so I think at times people still are fighting the fight over the substance, and want to talk about the substance, when in reality J Street is all about the politics. This is a political problem and J Street's a political solution. We're putting votes and resources behind candidates who are willing to change the political space."
With our increasingly militaristic foreign policy – including what apperas to be the Democratic Leadership's complicity in a $400 million covert ops program in Iran as revealed in Seymour Hersh's important news article this week – I'm not as convinced as Ben-Ami that our representatives would automatically do the right thing if they had greater political space. I asked whether it would take some prodding and grassroots organizing from groups like J Street? But he's steadfast in his confidence.
"I think that what there is clearly agreement on is people understand that a militaristic approach to conflicts with political roots isn't the right answer," he said. "And if you close the doors of members offices and you talk to them and you talk to their staffs, it is very clear that they do understand these issues and they do understand what would be a good direction for foreign policy. And it is clear that if they had the political space, the outcomes would be different…. [For example], I'm not sure that J Street would endorse a direct US government approach to Hamas…. But shouldn't there be quiet diplomacy taking place between intermediaries and third parties? Shouldn't the US get out of the way if Israel wants to talk to Hamas which it obviously has done? Shouldn't it not discourage Egypt and other entities from playing useful roles? Absolutely. And I think you would find support for that set of policies."
As far as Iran and moves by the Bush Administration towards military confrontation, Ben-Ami spoke clearly on J Street's position. "There's no question that one of the most important issues in the coming months that relates to the Middle East and American foreign policy is how we're going to deal with Iran," he said. "We've been really clear that we do not support a first resort to military means to counteract the threat for Iran. We believe there is a real threat – you know, we're not going to dismiss the fact that this guy who runs Iran is a lunatic, and that it is dangerous for people like this to have nuclear weapons. We are adamantly opposed to the development of nuclear weapons by Iran. But we think the current policy has been a complete failure and we should be trying a different approach to creating political space for opponents, and to creating political opportunities in Iran, and at least giving assertive diplomacy a shot before we move straight to the military option."
I challenged Ben-Ami about J Street's decision not to directly respond to some of what was said at AIPAC's recent annual meeting in order to assert itself as a progressive counter to that organization.
"It is very important – and we've made clear from the get-go – that this is not an anti-AIPAC effort," Ben-Ami said. "Because there are a lot of people who support AIPAC and who do it out of very goodhearted reasons…. So, we are really consciously not anti-AIPAC. We are against the fact that the debate on Israel has been hijacked by the right-wing – that's right-wing Christian Zionists, right-wing neoconservatives, rightwingers who run major Jewish organizations, but it's not all AIPAC…. The truth is so much more complex and it actually doesn't serve anybody's purpose to make this about AIPAC because it's about the policy – it's about what's best for Israel, it's about what's best for the United States."
But how, then, does J Street envision building a truly level playing field in the face of AIPAC and other right-wing organization's clout, money, and size?
"It's true," Ben-Ami said, "we don't have 30 years to build up a force of equal size and sophistication. What we need is a smart, focused strategy that maximizes bang for the buck. We can't do everything the other side does. We can't match every organizer, every campus group, every conference. What we can do is draw strength from the knowledge that the policy makers and politicians actually know what's right on this issue – they just need political space to say it. That's why we are focused on – (1) the demonstrative impact of providing significant financial support to only a handful of races rather than trying to be engaged everywhere; (2) building an online list as quickly as possible since political change is going to be driven from the net in the coming years; and (3) creating a lobby whose purpose is to show members that there really is support for these positions among their existing constituencies and donors."
Time will tell how successful J Street will be in creating the political space necessary to chart a new, more sane path in our pursuit of peace in the Middle East. While I don't agree with 100 percent of its positions – such as leaving the military option on the table as a way to deal with Iran and nuclear proliferation – I believe it is a welcome and much needed addition to a political landscape defined until now by excluded voices and alternatives.
Share this article
News & Analysis »
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
>>>In fact, there is a far more open and dynamic debate about the peace process in Israel than in the US. (For example, over 64 percent of Israelis favor direct talks with Hamas.) But a new lobby organization and PAC – J Street – aims to end the right-wing monopoly and give voice to the substantial number of Jewish and non-Jewish Americans with more moderate views on these issues.<<<
Smart, smart, smart move!
Hurray for J Street!
Posted by Metteyya at 07/01/2008 @ 6:40pm
An interesting post.
Thanks, Katrina.
A couple of somewhat random observations:
One)
Jeremy Ben-Ami: "We've been really clear that we do not support a first resort to military means to counteract the threat for Iran. We believe there is a real threat – you know, we're not going to dismiss the fact that this guy who runs Iran is a lunatic, and that it is dangerous for people like this to have nuclear weapons..."
Well, first off, "the guy runs Iran" does not actually run Iran. Iran has a very complex political structure and Ahmadinejad is, in effect, a bit player with very limited powers.
Second, any objective observer might reasonably conclude it is the U.S. that has been acting as if run by lunatics --over the last seven years in particular, but for several decades to perhaps a lesser extent.
Two)
Ben-Ami: "Because there are a lot of people who support AIPAC and who do it out of very goodhearted reasons…. So, we are really consciously not anti-AIPAC. We are against the fact that the debate on Israel has been hijacked by the right-wing – that's right-wing Christian Zionists, right-wing neoconservatives, rightwingers who run major Jewish organizations, but it's not all AIPAC…. The truth is so much more complex and it actually doesn't serve anybody's purpose to make this about AIPAC because it's about the policy – it's about what's best for Israel, it's about what's best for the United States."
A very good point. One option that might be strongly conducive to the formulation of a better U.S. created foreign policy in general would be to shine a light on many of the organizations and individuals who have been instrumental in the shaping of our mostly self-defeating foreign policy initiatives over the decades.
The Nation's piece from 2002, "The Men of JINSA and CSP", by Jason Vest was a personal favorite of mine.
I'd bet that more investigative reporting on the back room negotiators who profit from our poor foreign policy, weapons dealing, and war making would be welcomed with rave reviews by the readers of this rag. And reporting of this nature would also provide a valuable cohort to the work of Scahill, Klein and others here that The Nation --for very good reason-- admirably touts.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/01/2008 @ 7:22pm
Considering how much effort the hsuB/cHeney admin put in to it recently, one would think with the winds of change behind it that hsuB's job approval poll numbers wouldn't keep sliding even lower... 19% anyone?
PRESIDENT BUSH – Overall Job Rating in national polls
Survey_Dates_Approve_Disapprove_Unsure_Dif
L.A. Times/Blmbrg_6/19-23/08__23__73__4__-50
CBS_______5/30 - 6/3/08__25__67__8__-42
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/01/2008 @ 7:34pm
J Street believes that "there is a real threat" that Iran will attack Israel. To most of us, it seems that there is a much more realistic threat that Israel will attack Iran. After all, AIPAC and its supporters are openly clamoring for confrontation with Iran. Iran hasn't invaded anybody for centuries, which is more than the US or Israel can say.
J Street is in favor of "at least giving assertive diplomacy a shot before moving straight to the military option." "Assertive diplomacy" may mean giving Iran an ultimatum to stop enrichment, and when Iran refuses, use this as a pretext for war. So J Street will be satisfied if the US and/or Israel go through a charade of attempting to avoid war, while planning all along to launch an attack. That's exactly what happened to Iraq in 2003.
By the way, under international treaty, Iran has a perfect right to enrich uranium for nuclear power.
Does J Street have an opinion about whether or not Israel should obey international law?
What about the Apartheid Wall on the occupied West Bank?
What about Israel's hundreds of nuclear weapons?
What about the siege of Gaza?
If J Street has an opinion on any of these questions, Katrina vanden Heuvel doesn't ask about it.
She is so delighted in having an alternative to AIPAC that she overlooks something: J Street is not much of an alternative.
Posted by NevadaNed at 07/01/2008 @ 7:38pm
"This is a political problem and J Street's a political solution. We're putting votes and resources behind candidates who are willing to change the political space."
Maybe with growing political clout, J Street can instill some courage in a cowardly Congress and correct some egregious misconceptions about the Jewish community. It's a start!
Posted by OneVote at 07/01/2008 @ 8:03pm
Ethnic cleansing is wrong. It was wrong in Nazi Germany, it was wrong in Yugoslavia and it's wrong in Palestine.
Yet today's national socialists strongly support the systematic dispossession and extermination of the Palestinian people by the Zionists, for the obvious reason that only perpetual warfare can justify national socialism's perpetual assault on our democratic constitution, perpetual bleeding of the people's wealth to benefit a small coterie of war profiteers, and perpetual hate-mongering directed against an entire ethnic/religious group, namely Arabs and Muslims.
Posted by samcrossett at 07/01/2008 @ 8:04pm
Thanks Katrina -
As a Jewish American who grew up around people with numbers on their arms, I feel that Israel needs to exist, has a right to exist. At the same time I strongly disagree with many of Israel's policies.
As a quite left American, I frequently feel outraged at some of the left-wing anti-Israel pro-Palestinian rhetoric at places like peace rallies.
Maybe J Street will allow a space for those of us who feel this way - and I know a number - and are either asked to defend our pro-Israel stance or to defend our political beliefs.
I was very glad a few years ago when Eric Alterman wrote a column on this subject.
Posted by ramara at 07/01/2008 @ 11:16pm
"Never before have candidates received tangible political support for agreeing that pursuing both a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and aggressive diplomacy to solve political conflicts in the Middle East should be central to American foreign policy," Ben-Ami said."
First of all, that issue was settled 60 years ago.
You have Nation 1 in the nation of Israel. You have Nation 2 in the nation of Jordan.
It is not a conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. First of all, there is no such group as "Palestinians". Until 1967, that was the overwhelming view of the Arabs themselves. Most considered themselves Syrian, if anything.
What this continues to be is a sometimes war action, a constant terrorist action, and the drip, drip political movement to complete the Arab/Muslim goal; the elimination of the State of Israel and if possible, the Jews themselves.
Yet, leftist groups and self-hating Jewish groups (who are usually non religious or reform at best) join eagerly in the spin that these are actually attempts at peace.
What a joke (and not funny at all). With friends like these, Israel should just say no thanks; they have enough enemies without adding on groups like this.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/02/2008 @ 12:45am
self-hating Jewish groups... join eagerly in the spin that these are actually attempts at peace.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/02/2008 @ 12:45am
Yep sort of like Mother Teresa was a self-hating Albanian female...
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/02/2008 @ 01:40am
lvliberty1 - Yes, I agree with your first point. The debate often forgets that the west bank and Gaza did to belong to the Palestinians in 1967, and I think there are people who don't know that the west bank was part of Jordan and Gaza was part of Egypt. I also don't know how children and grandchildren of the Arabs who left Israel can still be considered refugees. This has been a state encouraged by many of the Arab states Why haven't they created a home for their children?
What follows from this is that when the Palestinians say they want their land back, they are talking about Israel, not the territories. In 1948, the Arabs chose not to accept partition (Israel and Jordan) and to fight instead. If that had been different, many of them might still be in Israel.
That said, I have a very hard time with many of the things Israel does. I sometimes feel that there are no good guys.
But I disagree with the hardliners in this country, and am glad that people will not see us as a monolith.
Posted by ramara at 07/02/2008 @ 02:30am
LvLiberty-It's quite difficult to find your posts that don't include the word-hate and where you are claiming that you decide who hates what..You may wish to find out why the word "hate" always pops into your head more so than most other people.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/02/2008 @ 11:42am
Perhaps one day this country will actually stand with people yearning to breathe free, like the Palestinians, and stop supporting colonialism. Probably not, though.
Posted by sliptip at 07/02/2008 @ 12:27pm
First of all, that issue was settled 60 years ago.
Posted by lvliberty1
by white guys.
the way god intended!
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/02/2008 @ 1:01pm
Well guys, here's a good one I just heard on NPR, a little off topic though.
Baltimore's Police force has been ordered to "go green" and come up with ways of doing so. One of the top suggestions?
Car-pooling to the crime scene, which if mandatory, conjours up the following scenario:
Messrs. Jackson, Rabinowitz, O'Reilly and Mustafa rob a bank: Officer A prepares to respond, but he must wait for Officer B so they aren't driving 2 cars: But, alas, Officer B is on the toilet, so officer A waits like a dutiful greeny, and the crooks get away.
Bad News: Perpetrators escape with the money.
Good news: a 15% reduction in carbons!
(We are truly doomed)
Posted by william.harry13 at 07/02/2008 @ 1:26pm
Well guys, here's a good one I just heard on NPR, a little off topic though.
Baltimore's Police force has been ordered to "go green" and come up with ways of doing so. One of the top suggestions?
Car-pooling to the crime scene, which if mandatory, conjours up the following scenario:
Messrs. Jackson, Rabinowitz, O'Reilly and Mustafa rob a bank: Officer A prepares to respond, but he must wait for Officer B so they aren't driving 2 cars: But, alas, Officer B is on the toilet, so officer A waits like a dutiful greeny, and the crooks get away.
Bad News: Perpetrators escape with the money.
Good news: a 15% reduction in carbons!
(We are truly doomed)
Posted by william.harry13 at 07/02/2008 @ 1:29pm
Thanks for the link, KVH.
I have signed up as a member of J Street and fully support what they are doing!
Posted by Metteyya at 07/02/2008 @ 1:44pm
Let's see here. This is the United States of America isn't it? I don't think Israel is a state within the union...nope, it's not. It's not the United States to Support Israel of America, so please tell me why AIPAC or any other group of people are influencing whether or not we go to war for another country. Israel wants to attack Iran but can't and needs the U.S. bombers to wipe out the plants the aren't producing nuclear weapons according to U.S. intelligence reports.
Israel is a sovereign country and can stand on it's own. If they wish to attack Iran, then they should do so and be prepared to handle the consequences of going through an attack like that (without the U.S.). We are not joined at the hip with Israel and the bulk of the population in the United States is not Jewish either. So, the handful of people in the U.S. that want to attack Iran should get the hell out of the U.S. and become citizens of Israel or shut the hell up.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/02/2008 @ 2:22pm
Yet, leftist groups and self-hating Jewish groups (who are usually non religious or reform at best) join eagerly in the spin that these are actually attempts at peace.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/02/2008 @ 12:45am
Liberty -- what do you mean "reform at best"? Are reform Jews somehow less Jewish than Orthodox or Conservative? Are you in a position to judge the diverse interpretations of the Torah, Talmud and the evolution of Jewish theology? Why do you feel that it's okay for you to label Jews who feel differently than you on Israel as "self-hating"?
As a Jew, I take great offense to your post. As a Jew, I am glad J Street is trying to bring a more robust debate to this country -- just as there is a more robust debate in Israel. You are -- perhaps unwittingly -- stereotyping a "good" Jew as a person who should believe and behave in a certain way.
Posted by italiano at 07/02/2008 @ 2:36pm
LVLIB....MCCAIN favored talking to Hamas (in Davos, remember?)
Plus, also remember...ISRAEL is still talking to Hamas and Hezbollah.
You're even to the extreme among Republicans AND the Israelis!
Posted by Maskbeta at 07/02/2008 @ 1:30pm
I've stated previously that I disagree with McCain on this.
The Israeli talks with Hezbollah and Hamas have come under great criticism in Israel and by others.
"Swapping live terrorists for dead soldiers Israel gets back its boys. But the deal will embolden extremists. By Benny Morris July 1, 2008 Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and the rest of the region's terrorists are no doubt rubbing their hands with joy. Israel has once again been humiliated by its Arab foes, and Nasrallah's depiction of the Jewish state as a "cobweb" polity, a Middle Eastern paper tiger, has been significantly reinforced.
This is the unfortunate upshot of Sunday's decision by the Israeli Cabinet to swap a cluster of live Lebanese and Palestinian terrorists for the remains, held by Hezbollah, of two Israel Defense Forces reserve soldiers -- Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser -- killed in an ambush in July 2006 along the Israel-Lebanon border. Ironically, the ambush triggered that summer's war in Lebanon during which Israel tried, and failed, to force Lebanon and Hezbollah to give back the two soldiers, who, we now know, were either killed outright or mortally wounded in the ambush. More than 1,500 Lebanese, including about 500 Hezbollah men, and 160 Israelis died in the 33-day war.
The prospective swap is clearly the desperate act of a weak prime minister and Cabinet driven by emotional public opinion, which is itself driven by a chorus of appeals from the relatives of the two soldiers. It is also only the last in a string of exchanges in which Israel has paid exorbitantly to get its boys back, dead or alive."
http://tinyurl.com/3sbql9
I'm not extreme in Israel on my positions. That is the Likud position and the position of the next prime minister, Netenyahu.
Also, related to this discussion, the following article highlights how the world, especially the Arabs, the Europeans, the UN and typical liberal and leftist bloggers ignore the facts about Israel and the Arabs who had been also living there at the time Israel was reborn as a nation.
"Jun 30, 2008 19:29 | Updated Jul 1, 2008 10:17
The double Nakba
By IRWIN COTLER
Following the speech, a lawyer asked why I did not refer to "Palestinian suffering" and the lesson of the "Nakba" of 60 years ago. I told her, "You're right, the Palestinian people - have - and are - suffering; and, you are correct, they did endure a Nakba 60 years ago, and there is an important lesson there. But the lesson to be learned is not that the Nakba was the result of the creation of the State of Israel. Rather, it was the result of the Palestinian and Arab leadership rejecting the UN resolution calling for the establishment of both a Jewish state and a Palestinian-Arab state.
"The Jewish leadership accepted the resolution, but the Palestinian and Arab leadership did not, which they had a right to do. What they did not have a right to do was attack the nascent Jewish state with the objective - as they acknowledged at the time - of initiating a 'war of extermination.' The result was, therefore, a double Nakba: not only of Palestinian-Arab suffering and the creation of a Palestinian refugee problem, but also, with the assault on Israel and on Jews in Arab countries, the creation of a second, much less known, group of refugees - Jewish refugees from Arab countries."
IT IS tragic to appreciate that had the Partition Resolution been accepted 60 years ago, there would have been no Arab-Israeli war - no refugees, Jewish or Arab - and none of the pain and suffering since. Indeed, we would have been celebrating the 60th anniversary of both the State of Israel and the State of Palestine.
Moreover, this "double rejectionism," where Arab leadership was prepared to forgo the establishment of a Palestinian state if it meant countenancing a Jewish state in any borders, not only found expression 60 years ago, but has underpinned the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict ever since.
Yet the revisionist Mideast narrative - prejudicial to authentic reconciliation and peace between peoples as well as between states - continues to hold that there was only one victim population, Palestinian refugees, and that Israel was responsible for the Palestinian Nakba of 1948.
The result is that the pain and plight of 850,000 Jews uprooted and displaced from Arab countries - the forgotten exodus - has been both expunged and eclipsed from both the Middle East peace and justice narratives these past 60 years.
Simply put, the Arab countries not only rejected a Palestinian state and went to war to extinguish the nascent Jewish state, but also targeted the Jewish nationals living in their respective countries, thereby creating two refugee populations - the Palestinian refugee population resulting from the Arab war against Israel, and the Jewish refugees resulting from the Arab war against its own Jewish nationals.
Indeed, evidence contained in a recent report entitled "Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries: The Case for Rights And Redress" documents for the first time a pattern of state-sanctioned repression and persecution in Arab countries - including Nuremberg-like laws - that targeted its Jewish populations, resulting in denationalization, forced expulsions, illegal sequestration of property, arbitrary arrest and detention, torture and murder - namely, anti-Jewish pogroms. And while the internal Jewish narrative has often referred to pogroms as European attacks on their Jewish nationals, it has often ignored Arab-Muslim attacks on their Jewish nationals.
Moreover, as the report also documents, these massive human rights violations were not only the result of state-sanctioned patterns of oppression in each of the Arab countries, but they were reflective of a collusive blueprint, as embodied in the Draft Law of the Political Committee of the League of Arab States.
The writer is the member of parliament for Mount Royal and the former minister of justice and attorney general of Canada. A professor of law at McGill University and an international human rights lawyer, he has acted as counsel to both Israeli and Palestinian NGOs and written extensively on the Middle East"
http://tinyurl.com/6gpm8l
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/02/2008 @ 3:16pm
Good news: a 15% reduction in carbons!
(We are truly doomed)
Posted by william.harry13 at 07/02/2008
actually,
i think if they didn't let their patrol cars idle for an hour while they direct traffic.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/02/2008 @ 3:34pm
Yet, leftist groups and self-hating Jewish groups (who are usually non religious or reform at best) join eagerly in the spin that these are actually attempts at peace.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/02/2008 @ 12:45am
Liberty -- what do you mean "reform at best"? Are reform Jews somehow less Jewish than Orthodox or Conservative? Are you in a position to judge the diverse interpretations of the Torah, Talmud and the evolution of Jewish theology? Why do you feel that it's okay for you to label Jews who feel differently than you on Israel as "self-hating"?
As a Jew, I take great offense to your post. As a Jew, I am glad J Street is trying to bring a more robust debate to this country -- just as there is a more robust debate in Israel. You are -- perhaps unwittingly -- stereotyping a "good" Jew as a person who should believe and behave in a certain way.
Posted by italiano at 07/02/2008 @ 2:36pm |
Italiano
1. I stand in agreement with Orthodox Judaism that Reform Judaism is not Judaism.
2. I also take my stand as an ordained minister, trained in Torah (both the Tanach and the Talmud and Midrashim); one who has been recognized by Orthodox Rabbis as a "righteous gentile", a recognition I accept with great humbleness and gratitude.
3. I take that stand I do on self-hating Jews because I know many of them and my feelings towards them are no different than that expressed in Israel where the reform movement is not accepted.
But it is not just I or the Orthodox of Judaism, G-d has also laid out these rebukes on many occasions. You would do well to read the words given to the prophet Isaiah in the many condemnations given regarding those who practiced according to their own hearts rather than obedience to G-d through the Mitzvah. Read the prophet Zephaniah, where G-d promises to preserve a remnant who would be faithful. Read the prophet Malachai about the rebellion, the profaning of the holy, and the corruption of priests who did not minister and serve in holiness and obedience.
Thus Italiano, I find a great deal of authority for that which I have declared.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/02/2008 @ 3:36pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/02/2008 @ 3:16pm |
"Finally, we come to the principle of retroactive validity. This is perhaps the most compelling one that may operate in favour of Mr. Bush and his coalition. If the war uncovers weapons of mass destruction, exposes Iraq's deception, and is supported by the Iraqi people, it may well be that the legal niceties surrounding the use of force will be overtaken by post-invasion validation."
IRWIN COTLER
March 21, 2003
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/02/2008 @ 3:40pm
Posted by Maskbeta at 07/02/2008 @ 8:50pm
One thing I can count on with you is your innate ability to ignore facts when it doesn't suit you.
Try just once learning the facts about Israel and the war against it by the Arabs since 1948. Try learning the facts about the seperation of "British Palestine" instead of the usual leftist rhetoric that even you swallow without any hesitation.
But you won't do that because you prefer to argue with me or anyone else who supports Israel; even though you don't have facts to back you up; just ad hominem attacks and straw men.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/03/2008 @ 12:57am
But you won't do that because you prefer to argue with me or anyone else who supports Israel; even though you don't have facts to back you up; just ad hominem attacks and straw men.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/03/2008 @ 12:57am
Great Liverlips. Take up Judiasm, become a citizen of Israel and take up the fight instead of bravely hacking at your keyboard and spewing your right wing B.S. The United States is not Israel. If Israel is the country you love, become a citizen of Israel.
The fact is, you veiw yourself as a Christian but don't follow the ways of Christ. The problem for you is that you can't decide what you want to be when you grow up...times running out for you.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/03/2008 @ 07:06am
It's interesting to discuss ways for peace to come to Israel,but it won't happen anytime soon because the fanatics from the Abrahamic religions won't allow peace to come to Israel and there is nothing that can be done to stop them from destroying attempts to bring peace to Israel..One cannot reason with a fanatic because fanatics do not think logically and are driven by emotions that they have little control over and they believe too strongly in their own righteousness and in the righteousness of their cause because they have a book that they misinterpret in order to justify their beliefs and actions..It's just more insanity in the name of religion.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/03/2008 @ 10:56am
It's just more insanity in the name of religion.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/03/2008 @ 10:56am
Well put. Couldn't agree more.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/03/2008 @ 11:08am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/03/2008 @ 12:57am
so what do you propose for the uh "jordanians"?
deportation?
to where, alaska?
showers?
what is your solution?
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/03/2008 @ 11:56am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/03/2008 @ 12:57am
so what do you propose for the uh "jordanians"?
deportation?
to where, alaska?
showers?
what is your solution?
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/03/2008 @ 11:56am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/03/2008 @ 12:57am
so what do you propose for the uh "jordanians"?
deportation?
to where, alaska?
showers?
what is your solution?
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/03/2008 @ 11:56am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/03/2008 @ 12:57am
so what do you propose for the uh "jordanians"?
deportation?
to where, alaska?
showers?
what is your solution?
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/03/2008 @ 11:56am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/03/2008 @ 12:57am
so what do you propose for the uh "jordanians"?
deportation?
to where, alaska?
showers?
what is your solution?
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/03/2008 @ 11:56am
time warpation!
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/03/2008 @ 11:57am
Another interesting thing about Israel is that the three Abrahamic religions are waiting for the same god to do something that proves them right and the holy warriors are fighting against each other over the same god.As an impartial judge,however,I have to give the fight to the Christians.God likes them more.They get a better afterlife deal with less effort and got the better land in this life..They are the favorites.The other two just get the desert to live in.Realizing that should stop the fighting over this god.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/03/2008 @ 1:28pm
so what do you propose for the uh "jordanians"?
deportation?
to where, alaska?
showers?
what is your solution?
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/03/2008 @ 11:56am
Why should they leave? They are Arabs and the land partition was given to the Arabs. There are more Arabs who left to live in Jordan from what is now Israel than Arabs living in the entire land west of Jordan-(that includes Israel and the West Bank and Gaza).
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/03/2008 @ 4:43pm
I joined J Street. It's time those of us who love Israel and are proud of what she has accomplished and who love our Judaism have a voice that doesn't echo James Hagee at times and doesn't sound like Joe Lieberman (shudder).
I hope J Street grows into the powerhouse it should be and can speak against Israel being used as either the spearhead of an American attack on Iran or the landing strip of the Second Coming.
Posted by midnight04 at 07/03/2008 @ 5:04pm
Why should they leave?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/03/2008 @ 4:43pm
exactly.
they should go HOME!
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/03/2008 @ 10:56pm
Too late, OBL already won:
FLASHBACK: Ten Years Ago, Bin Laden Demanded Barrel Of Oil Should Cost $144»
In a 1998 interview, Osama bin Laden -- the terrorist organizer of 9/11 who still roams free -- listed as one of his many grievances against the U.S. that Americans "have stolen $36 trillion from Muslims" by purchasing oil from Persian Gulf countries at low prices. The real price of a barrel of oil should be $144, bin Laden demanded.
Ten years ago today, the price of a barrel of oil was just $11. Heading into this holiday weekend, the price of a barrel of oil rested at $144 -- a thirteen-fold increase.
One month after 9/11, the New York Times wrote of possible "nightmare" scenarios that would deliver bin Laden's goal. Neela Banerjee warned that among the "misguided decisions" that would put oil supplies at risk would be "that the United States attacks Iraq." The Times included this quote in its story:
...
Bin Laden didn't have to become king of Saudi Arabia to achieve his goal; in fact, Bush's policies delivered it for him. The Bush administration's catastrophic decision to invade Iraq, sink the nation into debt to pay for that war, and consequently, weaken the dollar have all caused oil prices to soar astronomically.
Testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee last May, Anne Korin, the co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, reminded Congress about bin Laden's goal:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/05/bin-laden-144-oil/
OOops, I'm sure 'peace' in the Middle East is well worth the repub new con hsuB/cHeney petty dic'tatorship total capitulation to OBL...
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/06/2008 @ 9:50pm
Oh, we don't have peace. UH!
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/06/2008 @ 9:52pm