Has any political organization squandered its credibility as quickly as J Street, a new organization that promotes itself as a peacenik alternative to AIPAC? Supposedly, the machers at J Street thought that AIPAC was not properly representing the Jewish community's views on Israel because AIAPC too "right-wing." It's become obvious, however, that the J Street founders' problem with AIPAC is not that it's too right-wing (in fact, despite claims emanating from left-wingers about AIPAC's "right-wingedness", AIPAC rarely deviates from supporting current Israeli government policy, and its leadership has been largely Democratic for decades--the architect of AIPAC's prominence beginning in the 1980s was former Ted Kennedy staffer Tom Dine), but that it is too nonpartisan; AIPAC, as a nonpartisan pro-Israel lobby, cooperates with both Republicans and Democrats, exactly as a non-partisan lobby should. J Street, it turns out, wants to be an adjunct of the Democratic Party, and apparently wants to discredit pro-Israel Jews who cooperate with the Republicans.
Consider the current front page of J Street's website:
We Won! Palin Not Speaking at Iran Rally
We collected over 20,000 signatures in 24 hours asking Iran Unity rally organizer Malcolm Hoenlein to take Sarah Palin off the schedule for Monday's rally, and he caved to our pressure on Thursday afternoon citing the fact that the rally had become too partisan.
This is the right decision. A unity rally to express communal solidarity is no place for partisan politics [recall that Hillary Clinton backed out after accepting an invitation o the rally, and other prominent Democrats were welcome as well]. And to give such prominence to Sarah Palin alone would have spoken neither to, nor for, the American Jewish community.
How exactly does this "victory" have anything to do with J Street's purported mission:
J Street is the political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement.
J Street was founded to promote meaningful American leadership to end the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Israel conflicts peacefully and diplomatically. We support a new direction for American policy in the Middle East and a broad public and policy debate about the U.S. role in the region.
J Street represents Americans, primarily but not exclusively Jewish, who support Israel and its desire for security as the Jewish homeland, as well as the right of the Palestinians to a sovereign state of their own - two states living side-by-side in peace and security. We believe ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in the best interests of Israel, the United States, the Palestinians, and the region as a whole.
J Street supports diplomatic solutions over military ones, including in Iran; multilateral over unilateral approaches to conflict resolution; and dialogue over confrontation with a wide range of countries and actors when conflicts do arise.
Did J Street somehow know that Palin "supports military solutions over diplomatic ones, including in Iran?" I doubt it, and even if she did, the obvious response would be to try to engage her to try to support J Street's perspective, not to try to prevent her from speaking--especially since neither J Street (nor anyone else) really knows whether Palin's overall views on the Middle East might be to its liking. Unless, of course, J Street, whose leadership is composed of leading Jewish liberal Democrats, was serving the interests of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, and not its purported, "pro-peace, pro-Israel" mission.
UPDATE: Here's the speech the McCain campaign says that Palin was planning to deliver. It makes a nonpartisan (or bipartisan) pitch, and calls for sanctions and other diplomatic actions, with only the vaguest implication of a potential military response.
Well, while I agree with this criticism, it's worth noting that the reason J Street doesn't know this is because there's no evidence that Sarah Palin has ever seriously thought about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or understands the historical currents, grievances, and motivations that underly it.
So yeah, because Sarah Palin probably isn't qualified for the job, criticisms that she "believes" this or that tend not to have merit. That isn't, however, a point in her favor.
George Orwell would be proud.
There's an election coming up, is it beyond the pale for Hillary to say, "Meh, I'm not going to show up with that charlatan" (irony alert for some, I'm sure) and cancel out. This is perfectly normal politics, whether you like it or not.
As others have noted, it's rather odd (though quite telling) that the event was non-partisan as long as only Democrats were showing up, but became intensely partisan once prominent individuals from both parties were going to appear.
Now, by non-partisan to you mean apolitical? I think it's reasonable to observe that they both carry politics with them wherever they go. That there would be fireworks if they were both there together seems similarly obvious to me. Hillary backing out signals an aversion to that kind of drama, Palin accepting, a naivete towards what she thinks she can handle (false dichotomy alert). If they were there and had to make an appearance together (and even if not) you can imagine who would be giving who a backrub for the cameras while stabbing her in the coochie. Point being, I think Palin should be grateful.
We collected over 20,000 signatures in 24 hours asking Iran Unity rally organizer Malcolm Hoenlein to take Sarah Palin off the schedule for Monday's rally, and he caved to our pressure on Thursday afternoon"
People who view silencing the free exchange of ideas are despicable. That Jews would engage in such totalitarian mind control is shocking.
Yeah, the fact that someone hasn't published their seriously thought out positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should automatically disqualify them for the VP position! Let's add this to the pre-reqs for the job.
The first couple of years of Bush presidency when we were not actively trying to solve this problem was such a relief. If they get tired of their status quo, they are more likely to come around to some settlement.
I am amazed that intelligent people swallow the proverbial Kool-Aid and regurgitate distinctions that make no difference.
The rally in question is against a rogue state whose leader has publicly advocated an act of genocide and complete elimination of a sovereign state. One would think that opposing this monster could inspire what used to be called bipartisanship -- the setting aside of partisan differences to promote ideas and policies which both parties agree with and which are in the national interest.
Like it or not, Sarah Palin is now on the national, if not international, stage by virtue of the fact that she is VP nominee of one of the two major parties.
Hillary Clinton is likely a prominent Democrat by virtue of her being a Senator, a NY Senator, and a candidate who almost became the presidential nominee.
Would it be too much to ask to put aside the partisan differences to condemn Mr. Ahmenijad and the genocidal evil he spews?
The notion that "the event would have been seen as nothing more than a Palin campaign rally by the media and (largely uninterested) observers" is utter claptrap. All Hillary would have to say is that while there are many things on which she disagrees with Ms. Palin, that the President of Iran must be stopped is one of those things BOTH parties agree with. Is that so hard to grasp?
Of course, my comment said nothing about "automatically disqualifying" Palin. It just said that she was probably not qualified and the fact that she has never given any thought to the Israel-Palestinian conflict and she doesn't understand the complexities of the situation is one indication of this.
The first couple of years of Bush presidency when we were not actively trying to solve this problem was such a relief. If they get tired of their status quo, they are more likely to come around to some settlement.
Of course, even if you think letting it fester is the right strategy, how do you know that Palin will let it fester rather than taking some action without any understanding of the consequences?
The story I've been hearing is that the crowds for this year's event were less that twenty percent of previous counts, and there were many McCain/Palin placards displayed. I suspect that Malcolm will be the sacrificial lamb for this debacle. The wages of appeasement.
And BTW, didn't Obama claim that he was interested in bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle? Or is that all rhetoric?
(To their credit, Sens. McCain and Obama appeared together at a memorial for 9/11 victims. No one thought THAT was a political event. Context is everything.)
Palin isn't running for President. Her areas of concentration will be ethics reform and energy policy. Unless McCain dies, she won't be setting policy on Israel.
Whether or not you believe such an argument, it's not out of the realm of reasonableness to think that GWB et al. were worse for Israeli security than, say, 8 years of Gore or whatever else.
If so, don't you think it is a bit odd that the first group that Sarah Palin met with after her nomination was AIPAC?
She's met more with AIPAC lobbyists than she has with members of the press since her nomination.
You can disagree with this (there are reasonable counterarguments), but I consider the qualifications for veep to be equivalent to those for President. Especially when you have a 72 year old candidate, but I would say the same thing if Obama had chosen someone of similar apparent qualifications to Palin.
I didn't imply that letting it "fester" is a strategy! When we are not sure what would be the best solution and have tried several approaches (and Bill Clinton spent a lot of effort towards the end of his presidency), and they haven't worked or backfired, taking a break is better than doing something for the sake of doing.
I don't know what Palin (as the VP) will or will not do; but you seem to have convinced yourself that she will do something and that will be something you don't like. Now you can go about fishing for facts to fit that theory:)
Not every thread has the most stupid comment first.
AIPAC (despite the name) is not a Political Action Committee (PAC). AIPAC stands for American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Because theya re not a PAC, they don't donate $ to candidates.
Fact? That was quick. Somehow I think its a stretch to believe that someone who has an Israeli flag flying in her office has never given any thought to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
I'm aware that the existence of her inability to understand complexities is an article of faith in some quarters (as it was with W, Reagan, Truman, Churchill, Jackson, Pitt, Elizabeth, Luther, et. al.). Some epistemological humility here would not be misplaced.
At least until the debate.
I have no idea, Sagar. I am not convinced of anything when it comes to what Palin will do.
But that's exactly the point. I want some indication that a candidate for Vice-President of the US has thought deeply about these issues and is aware of the competing claims and interests. That would give me some assurance that the person might make wise, informed decisions.
Yes, of course. That MUST be the reason Clinton backed down. Hilary has never accomplished anything in her life on her own. I guess getting that law degree doesn't rate as highly as being a beauty pageant queen in terms of Republican 'feminist' values.
I would say the same thing if Obama had chosen someone of similar apparent qualifications to Palin.
And Ms. Clinton's extraordinary qualifications are what, exactly?
DB, a surrogate is still not a candidate, and is not covered by the media as if he/she was the candidate.
Dilan is a treat, isn't he?
"I guess getting that law degree doesn't rate as highly as being a beauty pageant queen in terms of Republican 'feminist' values."
Does this sort of thing even convince yourself? I guess successfully standing up to Big Oil doesn't rate as highly as being a Goldwater Girl in terms of Democratic 'feminist' values.
See? Not very persuasive.
Richard,
"Dilan is a treat, isn't he?"
I think he is. He's one of the most honest and astute posters we have. I'd like to think I'd be a lot like him if my experiences had been his. Not to mention that I've never seen him make a typo, which is amazing.
directs the payment of large sums of money toseeks the support of both politicalinstrumentalitiesparties in this country.And they offer free training programs for people like Sarah Palin.
That's why AIPAC is right-wing.
Democrats are sometimes right-wing, too.
Not only that, but Democrats and some Jews want to prevent the Republican Party and Christian fundies (Palin is one) from getting credit for supporting Israel. The truth is that the Republican Party is as pro-Israel as the Democratic Party because of Republican Christian fundies' support for Israel. An online Time magazine article said,
A CNN news article says,
As I have pointed out many times, none of the other 14 members of the UN Security Council ever voted "no" in support of any of approx. 40 US vetoes of resolutions directed against Israel in the period 1972-2006, and in the period 1988-1997, there was an unbroken string of ten 14-1 such vetoes (i.e., there were no abstentions). That's inexcusable.
Iranian Pres. Ahmadinejad may be a madman but he is right about one thing: holocaust mythologies have been exalted above god, religion, and the prophets. A "systematic" Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews.
Also, this is supposed to be a law blog and once again David Bernstein has hijacked it to discuss Mideast policy, a subject that normally does not belong on law blogs. He is abusing his position as a law professor who had the good fortune to be invited to be a co-blogger on a very popular law blog.
He can't possibly know that this supposed fact is a fact.
You must be new. So new you haven't seen any posts by Jim Lindgren, apparently.
It's Eugene V's playground. There are other playgrounds, with helpful links on this very page.
Dilan honest? Did you see him on women in combat arms?
I'll give him typos, though.
How could they have? Palin will not speak to the media or otherwise give Americans the opportunity to learn anything about her.
"He can't possibly know that this supposed fact is a fact."
Already pointed that out above. I get the sense that Dilan hasn't had much experience (recently?) with challenges to his worldview, so he's not very familiar with his own blind spots and logical leaps. He does respond to such challenges with good faith, however, if not much imagination. He's often a useful corrective to my overactive one.
“Did J Street somehow know that Palin ‘supports military solutions over diplomatic ones, including in Iran?’
How could they have? Palin will not speak to the media or otherwise give Americans the opportunity to learn anything about her.
Another lying leftist meme. What was the ABC interview but “speak[ing] to the media” — which in turn was edited by the network in the direction of thoroughly trashing and distorting her views — thus preventing “Americans [from having] the opportunity to learn anything about her.”
It was certainly a grievous error by the McCain campaign to not have their own camera present also recording the interview so they could have immediately countered ABC's propaganda blast, which left many Americans convinced, e.g., that Palin really thinks that useful insights into Russia derive from being able to see that country across the Bering Strait — a horrible caricature of what she actually said in this regard.
No, I am not new -- I have been commenting on this blog for a long time.
What sort of inappropriate subjects does he blog about?
There are 18 co-bloggers on this blog and I do not follow the blogging habits of all of them. I just happen to be aware of David Bernstein's blogging habits because I frequently comment on his posts about Israel.
We were talking here about David Bernstein, not Eugene V. Anyway, this blog should not be regarded as anyone's "playground." This blog is frequently cited by law journal articles -- there must be well over 100 citations by now -- and the bloggers here are therefore under an especially heavy obligation to follow the highest ethical standards of blogging, including refraining from arbitrary censorship of visitors' comments.
So why doesn't David Bernstein find an appropriate one of these "playgrounds" -- as you call them -- to play in, instead of cluttering up this blog with posts that are not appropriate for a law blog. Is this a law blog or isn't it? A lot of people seem to be under the illusion that it is a law blog.
I'm just telling it the way I see it.
Kind of like Obama, who can't decide if Jerusalem should remain undivided or not. There's someone who has thought seriously on the subject and has a clear plan guided by the "historical currents, grievances, and motivations."
Good grief...
She likely understands more than most of us, but Obama's demonstrable command of the many complex issues that roil the region - and especially with his dominating expertise concerning the Jerusalem question - is going to force her to learn quickly.
I guess all the people I've met with numbers tattooed on their arms dreamed the whole up.
Maybe this brouhaha is simply a realization on the Dem side that they don't agree with J-street's opposition to Iran's nukes.
They're not inappropriate, they're just outside of the legal arena, which was your stated beef.
I don't agree. Then again, I seem to have mislaid my copy of the ethical standards applicable to blogging.
And a lot of people are under the illusion that the lame duck Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has the motive and opportunity to launch a single nuclear weapon in the direction of Israel in order to ensure the prompt destruction of his own country. A little rational inquiry and astute observation will help to distinguish the illusion from the reality.
I didn't vote for her, and one of my reasons was I don't count being First Lady as "experience in government". (I think the position should be abolished, and wives of heads of state should just go on doing whatever they were doing before like Cherie Blair did.)
But that said, my point about Palin is that there's no evidence that she has given many of the great problems and issues the country and the world faces any deep thought or that she has any interest in them. Hillary Clinton has many faults as a politician, but she meets that minimal standard.
Michael, show me one public or private statement that Sarah Palin ever made about the subject before being named McCain's running mate.
It doesn't exist, because she hasn't thought about the issue, as is the case with many other important issues facing the government.
So, Biden won't show up for the VP debate, and McCain won't show up for the presidential debate, right?
"The public pronouncements of Iran?" Got a link to the press release?
I don't profess 100% certainty. I'm informed by reliable sources, such as the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran.
What evidence do you have that one or more of "the mullahs" suffers from psychosis? And is that charge supported by substantially more factual evidence than the charge that George W. Bush is a sociopath?
What part of the NIE are you referring to?
"Michael, show me one public or private statement that Sarah Palin ever made about the subject before being named McCain's running mate.
It doesn't exist, because she hasn't thought about the issue, as is the case with many other important issues facing the government."
There's also no evidence that she's stopped beating her husband. Does it therefore follow that she still is?
If one were truly as curious as you seem to be, I'd say you could contact one of the Jewish organizations in Alaska with whom she has worked. Or, like the rest of us, you could assume she's put the same amount of thought into it as any other state governor, with the likelihood that she has put that much or a bit more being heightened by the current Christian fascination with Jews and Israel and the Israeli flag in her office.
Its entirely valid to oppose her likely anti-Palestinian bias, but the ignorance assumption doesn't fly.
It's ignorance like that that makes so many people on this planet love us.
And I do think it's fair to question how well versed Palin is in Middle East policy, for two reasons-
a) Yes, she is a governor, but governor's don't really have much experience in the foreign policy realm. Saying she probably has as much as your standard American governor isn't really saying much, and it's probably not true considering she's been serving for less than 2 years and didn't know she'd be running for national office until a few weeks ago.
b) Nothing in her background suggests that she would have ever seriously engaged these issues. McCain and Biden are both longtime foreign policy heavyweights in the Senate. Obama is a serious intellectual who studied international relations at Columbia and has done a lot of traveling. The three of them all have likely devoted a decent amount of time to thinking about Israel and Palestine, certainly more than a journalism major with a pretty thin resume who has barely set foot on foreign soil.
So, what are the Palestinians' other values?
See any objections among them to their terrs attacking Israeli civilians?
Who was it they voted for last time?
Something about greenhouses....
I don't answer questions from posters who already know the answer.
I am happy to consider new factual information, however, at such time as anyone bothers to lay down his or her bullhorn and make those facts available for review.
In Iran, president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has renewed his previous calls for Israel’s elimination.
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “I want to tell them (western counties) just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out.”
Ahmadinejad spoke Tuesday before a widely-condemned conference that is questioning whether the Nazi Holocaust occurred.
just a cut and paste from a 10 second google-there were many more and that's just from MA. all sorts of other ones are easy to find. So, to repeat, are you living under a rock? just been released from prison after a 40 year sentence? honestly, you can find much better quotes than this out there if you open your deluded eyes.
You're referring to the high confidence that Iran stopped a certain process in 2003. Not the moderate confidence that they haven't restarted since then.
How'd I do?
And that what they stopped was engineering a warhead, reputedly the easy part, while continuing to accumulate fissile materials.
Okay?
There are terrorists among them???? Hell, they voted for a terrorist government. That would mean a majority like terror against Israel. That's more than "terrorists among them".
It is not necessarily the fault of the Palestinians that they are the only three-generation refugee population in history. And it could be said that it isn't their fault that their arab bros have spent uncountable resources turning them into expendable cannon fodder. It is merely the fact that they are a sick society functioning as expendable cannon fodder.
As a society, if any has passed the point of no return, they have. Even if it's not their fault.
Remember the museum reproduction of the Sbarro massacre, complete with simulated Jewish entrails?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel
And for the record, here's the exact quote:
If those are the cherries you wish to pick, fine.
Second, not to sound like a blowhard, but I've got a degree in international relations, have taken many classes on the Middle East, I know and am friendly with both Palestinians and very conservative Jews, and have read a lot of history of the region. And my views have evolved a lot over time with this study. Contrast that with you, who has probably allowed a few inflammatory anti-Palestinian op-ed pieces shape your view of the conflict, and you've decided you know all that is important to know.
Third, the goal I was referring to was not killing Jews, it was establishing a safe Palestinian state.
Fourth, don't give me that "caucasian" crap. If you think an entire nation of people has no value except murder, I would call it racism.
Aubrey - they voted for a party which has condoned/committed terrorism. But that's not why they voted for Hamas. Hamas is not only a group of terrorists - it's a political party that has stepped in to provide a ton of social services that the government was not. They have so much support at the ground level in Palestine because of these activities - if this weren't the case, they would never be put into office. Seeing them as just another terrorist organization is a one-dimensional approach. It would be like oversimplifying American politics by saying Americans vote for torture and corruption when they vote Republican and therefore are irredeemable as a people. Sure the Republican party's stance on torture is tough to swallow, and they have had their share of corruption problems in the past, but the Republicans also (ostensibly) stand for a muscular foreign policy, lower taxes, smaller government, conservative social policy, freer markets, freer trade, etc. etc. I guarantee that most Republicans don't agree 100% of the time with the party, but vote for them for other reasons. There are many, many moderate Palestinians (and many moderate Israelis), you just don't hear about them because the violence drowns them out.
It's impossible for you to have a serious discussion about this issue if you write off 100% of Palestinians as a lost cause. Again, they are people, not cartoon villains. They were born with the same brains, abilities, and instincts as everyone else on the planet. Sadly, they have been put into a very shitty situation, and many of them have chosen to respond with violence, and I think many of us, even though we don't know it, would respond the same way given the same level of poverty, lack of education, exposure to extremism, and ties to people who had been killed or evicted by a long-time enemy. Unless you think that people born outside Palestine are inherently somehow better than Palestinians, you have to accept that there are probably environmental/structural factors that lead them to do the things they do.
By de-humanizing people we disagree with, we make it absolutely impossible to ever understand them and address our disagreements. To do so is counterproductive, and is the kind of thinking that will do us no good if we're serious about making ourselves safe from terrorism.
The Palestinians are people, and us others might react as they do.
But the point is, it's them who are the problem. However they got there. How they got there is not relevant to the question of what to do now. You admit they are strongly affected by their circumstances. Which means they are strongly affected by their circumstances which means their Jewish neighbors ought to be concerned.
As should the rest of us.
An Israeli grad student wrote a paper which said the reason that IDF soldiers do not rape Arab women is that they have dehumanized the women. Can't win for losing, with grad students, I guess. I do not dehumanize Palestinians. They happen to exhibit some miserable human characteristics. Other species might not.
The Palis like social services more than they dislike killing Jews. Their choice, and one which Jews are entitled to address.
I recall an article by a Christian clergyman from the US who had a church in the West Bank. Got run out during the intifada, but since it wasn't the IDF doing it, nobody cared.
He said his congregation, Christians all, were so whacked out that they thought Yasser Arafat was an Israeli agent. P. J. O'Rourke in Holidays in Hell found some folks in the Bekaa Valley so far out they thought Syria was a Zionist entity.
Is anybody going to be so culturally chauvinistic as to insist that all people think as we in the west do?
Iraqi mothers will send their kids to Algeria or Tunisia for difficult medical issues, but not to Israel. First things first.
This is a false analogy. Palin is part of a NATIONAL CAMPAIGN THAT HAS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. If she had prior, intelligent public statements about the Middle East, the campaign would have provided them to the press.
Look, this is Dan Quayle all over again. Yes, movement conservatives went out of their way to never, ever, ever admit that Dan Quayle wasn't ready to be President. But the reality was different. Thankfully, this country never had to find out just how irresponsible a choice that was.
That makes them inappropriate.
That's obvious. And the reason why you don't agree is that you are not ethical.
You can't mislay things that can be found on the Internet. And bloggers' codes of ethics are generally similar to journalists' codes of ethics.
When the Oslo process began, Israel offered development aid and economic partnerships, and the Arabs said they wanted Israel and the Jews out of their life. The PLO blatatnly violated every Oslo promise they made and stepped up attacks on Jewish civilians Arafat decided to reject Israel's offer of a state that would include 97% of the land the PA said it wanted, with land from within the green line to make up much of the other 3%. Instead, the Arabs further intensified the violence and launched the Second Intifada. Israel responded with more checkpoints and closures, further devastating the Arab economy.
Israel withdrew from Gaza, leaving behind greenhouses and other valuable economic assets, which the Arabs promptly looted and burned. The Arabs then intensified missile attacks against Israeli citizens, leading to more checkpoints and closures. Arab bombers and acid throwers take advantage of Israel's humanitarian lanes at checkpoints in order to launch more attacks, then complain when the checkpoints are closed. In short, the Arabs preferred killing Jews to having a state and economic stability. In the process they devastated their own economy and social structure. And I am supposed to feel sympathy for their choosing the genocidal Hamas because Hamas provides social services that would not have been needed to begin with had the Arabs stopped opting for genocide?
I realize that many may not symptathize with Hamas' goals but cannot speak their minds. That fact does not excuse them from electing Hamas.
By the way, my reference to "peaceful agrarian reformers" was not an attempt to put words in your mouth or distort your position, but to suggest that you were willfully overlooking the murderous activities of Hamas by focussing on their social work, just as apologists for the Chinese communists did in the years following the second world war. I think most readers of this blog recognized the allusion and did not read it as charging that you had said Hamas was peaceful or agrarian, or that like James Earl Carter you had called them reformers.
Point is, there's nothing there AGT doesn't know. I guess he was hoping we wouldn't.
If somebody _______ on my back and tells me it's raining, they better expect to get the bill for cleaning my suit.