DISQUS

skulzfontaine · 1 year ago

Oh groan Spencer, groan, groan, and groan! Let's get right to the bottom line and just clear the air. Israel sucks! Two thoughts for you, 1- Joe Lieberman. Yeah, Sen. Joe 'little butcher' Lieberman. 2- Gaza! The "work" by Israel on Gaza IS an atrocity. You know, old school type genocidal atrocity.
Oh yeah one last thing, criticism of Israel IS NOT freaking anti-Semitism. Israel is deserving of MUCH criticism and the offering up of that Israel criticism gets "Jews" wound tighter than a fresh drum head. Had me a fine argument with Laura Rozen about that very subject. Rozen figures that the horror wrought by Israel on Palestinians is just fine and dandy. One could suppose that endless cycle of reciprocity is at work and play here. After all, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Perspective is everything.
So it's to be "J Street?" I wish them well. Israel still sucks and it isn't the business of America to support Israel. What in hell is up with Americans holding dual American/Israel citizenship? And passports? And serving in the IDF? What, Jews will serve in the IDF and not the freaking U.S. Marines? Hmmm, yup Israel sucks.

spencer_ackerman · 1 year ago

Skulz, I've had it with you. I have Jewish friends who've served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course not all criticism of Israel is anti-semitic. But what you wrote? That IS anti-semitic. You know that it's not just American Jews who can hold dual citizenship, right?

This will be the last time I address you or pay attention to your emails or comments.

skulzfontaine · 1 year ago

Yup Spence, that's about how I figured you'd react. Fair is fair except when it's Israel. So Spence, what was "anti-Semitic?" Hmmm? Dual citizenship? Why couldn't any Amerikan hold dual American/Palestinian citizenship? Yeah, how about that. How about Avigdor Lieberman? Yeah, struck a nerve I did. Fair is fair and I'm done with you. Do you have that many readers that Washington Independent can simply blow off a reader that is in disagreement with you? And start up with that "anti-Semitic" bullshit.? Yeah, I'm done with you. You are going to have to change the name of 'Washington Independent'. You aren't "independent" at all. How freaking biased and sad for you.

freddybak · 1 year ago

Spencer, with all due respect this is a pointless and partially dishonest piece. The first thing that jumped out at me is where you claim that Fox News, The Wall Street Journal editorial page, the New York Post, the Weekly Standard, Commentary and New Republic magazines suggest that criticism of Israel is prima facie anti-Semetic. Prima Facie Spencer, really? I challenge you to find such an argument made. Of course not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic and 99% of Israel's most hawkish supporters don't think that. What Israel's critics cleverly do, however, is say "Hey! I'm not anti-Semitic just because I am criticizing Israel! How dare you suggest that?" The problem is that in 99% of the circumstances that lead to such comments they are 1) not being called anti-Semitic or 2) their arguments ar, in fact, anti-Semitic in one form or another (this does happen, ya know).



But more generally, AIPAC is a group that focuses on the American-Israel RELATIONSHIP. This has many levels not least of which is grass roots cultural appreciation. AIPAC is very active in on this at all levels. It's policy positions are generally speaking supportive of the Israeli government (which, to Barak Obama's surprise, hasn't been Likud for quite some time). So if a dovish government is elected in Israel, AIPAC will push for the American government to support it! Which will mean AIPAC is no longer a right wing radical organization but a "pro-peace" one. Nevermind that AIPAC currently supports a two state solution, etc. Also, where the hell did you get the idea to equitoe ZOA with AIPAC when AIPAC has many times distanced itself.

freddybak · 1 year ago

Sorry, in my haste I forgot to edit. I am suggesting that 99% of the time Israel's critics are 1) not being called anti-Semitic or 2) actually making an anti-Semitic arguemtn.



Also, equitoe was supposed to be 'equate.'

fcukbsuh · 1 year ago

Until there's an honest/truthful debate on the illegal occupation of Palestine, there will never be peace there.

Kudos for Carter actually engaging Hamas...And while it is not covered by corporate media, a lot of jewish people around the globe are fully aware of the apartheid state being forged by the current Israeli state and are vocally outspoken on the issue.

fcukbsuh · 1 year ago

AIPAC is a big reason for all the problems...Always a refreshing thing to see one of the U.S.'s most powerful lobby not be about actual issues that impact a majority of Americans but about a foreign state.

With a population exceeding Israel's by more than a million, imagine if a lobby group for Azerbaijan dictated foreign policy, silenced debate on the single largest and most volatile issue facing the world today (Occupation of Palestine) and essentially held hostage 98% of all politcians in this country...How absurd would that be?...Well, it happens everyday with AIPAC

whyshouldtruthhurt · 1 year ago

israel never had designs on gaza, should have gotten out much soon but finally did, only to be rocketed every day since. and as for the most volatile issue in the world today being occupation of palestine, you have a pathetically narrow view of the world. and did you stop reading and thinking after israel offered arafat practically everything and got a wave of suicide murder instead -- enough to make much of the surrounding arab world like jordan, egypt and even the saudis reconsider priorities in the region. but that's ok...this way you get to spout idiocy and impress your blogging pals who don't know any better

fcukbsuh · 1 year ago

Gee, yeah, they offered so much to Arafat...A noncontiguous state of checkpoints that made a 'state' look like Swiss cheese...Nevermind no Right of Return for what the Amnesty International has listed as the single greatest refugee crisis in the world, the Palestinians who have been displaced.



And Israel has never kept any of the 'promises' or accords they've agreed to making them the most disingenuous state on the planet.



Fortunately, not all Jews are this narrowly and demonically focused.



"Over the decades there have been uprisings, wars, intifadas. Tens of thousands have lost their lives. Accords and treaties have been signed. Cease-fires declared and violated. But the bloodshed doesn't end. Palestine still remains illegally occupied. Its people live in inhuman conditions, in virtual Bantustans, where they are subjected to collective punishments, twenty-four hour curfews, where they are humiliated and brutalized on a daily basis. They never know when their homes will be demolished, when their children will be shot, when their precious trees will be cut, when their roads will be closed, when they will be allowed to walk down to the market to buy food and medicine. And when they will not. They live with no semblance of dignity. With not much hope in sight. They have no control over their lands, their security, their movement, their communication, their water supply. So when accords are signed, and words like "autonomy" and even "statehood" bandied about, it's always worth asking: What sort of autonomy? What sort of State? What sort of rights will its citizens have?



What lessons should we draw from this tragic conflict? Is it really impossible for Jewish people who suffered so cruelly themselves - more cruelly perhaps than any other people in history - to understand the vulnerability and the yearning of those whom they have displaced? Does extreme suffering always kindle cruelty? What hope does this leave the human race with? What will happen to the Palestinian people in the event of a victory? When a nation without a state eventually proclaims a state, what kind of state will it be? What horrors will be perpetrated under its flag? Is it a separate state that we should be fighting for or, the rights to a life of liberty and dignity for everyone regardless of their ethnicity or religion?"



-Arundhati Roy

whyshouldtruthhurt · 1 year ago

yeah, they did offer a lot to arafat. so much, in fact, that he couldn't accept it 1) because he was unprepared for israel to go so far and had not prepared his own people for the "end of conflict" that he was offered, including jerusalem as a shared capital, and 2) he was beholden to the despotic leaders of the surrounding arab states who used and played him like a puppet, and it obviously was not in their interest for an end to the conflict that they could use and manipulate for their own ends. you obviously know nothing about the proposals and have not even looked at the maps used at taba or else you would not fall into the idiotic, stereotype of labeling the proposed palestinian state a swiss cheese like bantustan. you are not a student of this conflict, you are a sensationalist and provocateur, so stop posing as a friend of the palestinian people and learn the truth. no serious person accepts palestinian right of return as a possibility, and to raise it is destructive to genuine negotiations, simply using the palestinians as a tool for political propoganda. yes, a limited number of palestinian refugees will be allowed to settle in israel, but palestinians living outside the territories of a new palestinian state will be welcomed into palestine. wow, is that so hard to understand? yes, thousands have died. why? because their leadership at every turn has abandoned them. two-state solution? like the one proposed in 1947 that palestinian jews accepted and palestinian arabs rejected. they could both be celebrating a 60th anniversary but for the maximalist positions always taken foolish leaders. they don't know when their homes will be demolished? of course they do. palestine remains illegally occupied? do you mean the so-called west bank? did you decry the jordanian occupation and demand a palestinian state then. not even the plo did so at its inception in 1964, focusing its attention on liberating the territory the jews made a state. why didn't the world insist on a palestinian state before israel took the west bank territories in 1967 -- after literally begging king hussein not to listen to egypt and syria, then getting their butts kicked, and begging hussein not to jump belatedly into the 6-day-war? hussein, toward the end of his life, acknowledged it was the single biggest mistake of his life. so, yes, israel defended itself after hussein rejected their pleas and ended up with the west bank territories. and then arafat never could figure out how to take "yes" for an answer. as for roy as your guide, she's done such a superb job of solving the problems of the subcontinent, why shouldn't she meddle in the middle east? as someone who decried the u.s. war in afghanistan following 9-11, and attacked the u.s. for its efforts to eliminate the taliban and al qaeda in afghanistan, you might want to search for a more credible source.

penizfase · 1 year ago

everyone is realizing israel was an anachronistically botched nation building scheme, but there is big bucks in israel support organizations. lobbying beats actually having to work for a living!

brian mills · 6 months ago

wonderful its about time that progressive jews took back their identity from the war monger hawks that have been the power brokers for so long

ronmossad · 1 month ago

Just because someone calls themselves “pro-Israel” doesn’t necessarily make it so.

http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/09/j-dead-en...

In the end, J Street is a great “hope and change” alternative to real Israel lobbying. Hope for terrorists and change that reduces the support for the only real democracy in the Middle East.

sbenzi · 3 days ago

The key question to ask the J-Street's utopists is: "please, define 'Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories'". Had they had a better knowledge of the legal rights of Israel under international law, they would not utter this nonsense of "occupation" anymore.