Those who self-promote themselves as “liberals” and “democrats” and that it is these values that drive their critiques of Israel, besides the non-existent demographic “threat” they persist in pandering about, also need be aware of the possibility in slipping into deep, dark waters. Unless, of course, they are well cognizant of their spreading of delusion.
Recently, Peter Beinart, as editor of Open Zion, allowed someone to employ anti-Semitic imagery.
"when it comes to the peace process we all know the cause of death; unending Israeli colonization—perhaps they will call the next settlement Polonium Adumim"
I thought, and posted so at his site, that this type of language
is horrendous. That an editor would allow it to go through, even in the spirit of balance and freedom of expression, is intolerable…But to accuse Jews of poisoning? Like those school girls in Hebron a decade or more ago? That Gaza bubblegum? Do we despoil the soil? Are we causing cancer, to the land, to the residents? This is the level of intellectual discourse at this site? Or is there a darker side? Anti-Semitic dabbling in the salon? How open is this blog center?
Now comes J Street.
J Street, too, throws in the anti-Semitic tag of "Jewish money” into the discourse.
In promoting their new video which urges Mitt Romney to publicly stand with the last three Prime Ministers of Israel and decades of Republican and Democratic leaders in favor of a two-state solution, they express their concern that
To date, Romney has been relatively circumspect when it comes to Israel, resisting the inclination of other candidates in the Republican field who have staked out positions to the right of Israel’s own government’s to burnish their “pro-Israel” credentials. While he has yet to declare whether he supports the two-state solution, Romney has been critical of President Obama’s efforts to achieve it. It has been widely speculated that a recent $100 million pledge to support Romney’s bid by right-wing billionaire Sheldon Adelson could prove a determining factor in Romney’s stance.
That is stooping low.Their money, I guess is not tinged with any Jewishness –
But more to the point, what is so sacred about a "bi-partisan cornerstone" which is how J St. describes the two-state solution as if there aren''t already two states in the former Palestine Mandate territory?After all, the US has been anti-Jerusalem-as-Israel’s-capital since 1949 but the vast majority of American opinion, Jewish and non-Jewish, supports a different American policy. Americans even like Netanyahu
JStreetPAC has consistently broken new ground since its establishment in 2008, becoming the largest pro-Israel PAC in its first election and in each since, as well as the first to disburse more than $1 million in a single cycle. This year, the PAC is not only on track to surpass its endorsement of 61 candidates in 2010, but to distribute more than its previous record of $1.5 million to candidates.
Americans have a more positive (35%) than negative (23%) view of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, though 41% are not familiar enough with him to rate him. Views of Netanyahu are similar to what they were in Gallup''s last measurement -- in May 1999, during the latter part of his first term as prime minister. The July 9-12 poll was conducted in advance of Netanyahu''s scheduled meeting with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney this weekend in Israel as part of Romney''s overseas trip.
It is even the law of the land even if various Presidents finagle out of moving the embassy to the city.
Is J Street implying its un-American not to support J Street''s radical, extremist ideological positions?
And, by the way, who employed that "American firster" slur, Jeremy? And then backtracking but not quite contrite?