« Historic Day: Obama Signs Advance VA Funding into Law | Home | Peggy Noonan Says That It's All Obama's Fault Now »
Goldberg: The Last Word (At Least From Me)
A couple of days ago, Jeffrey Goldberg explained why he was disinclined to associate with J Street, in spite of his sympathy for a two-state solution:
So I'm comfortable in many ways with J Street's basic worldview. On the other hand, I don't think the group has put forward a well-articulated vision of what a progressive Jewish democratic Israel should look like. This might be because, in addition to having progressive Zionists as members, it also has anti-Zionists (these are the types who are happy with Stephen Walt's tragic endorsement of the group) and it's obviously very hard to put forward a positive vision of a Jewish Israel when some of your important supporters -- Bernard Avishai comes to mind -- don't even believe in the idea of a Jewish state.
Now Goldberg denies that "anti-Zionists" like myself are actually keeping him away from J Street's conference. We would know this, presumably, if we had read a different one-line blog post, in which he says, with obvious sarcasm, "I'm sorry I'm going to miss this conference" (which, in context, if you follow his link, reads like "I'm sorry I'm going to miss this circus"). Then, en passant, Goldberg explains his evidence for "anti-Zionism."
On the more important question of Zionism and anti-Zionism, all I think I need to say is this: Avishai, the author of a book called "The Tragedy of Zionism," believes that Israel's Law of Return should be repealed. This is the law that grants Jews anywhere in the world to claim citizenship in the newly-reconstituted Jewish state, which was meant to be a refuge for persecuted Jews. The law is the raison d'etre of Zionism, and of Israel's existence. I don't think I was being "vicious" in pointing out that Avishai's conception of what Israel should be is very different from the mainstream Zionist position. By the way, J Street's position, as officially enunciated by its head flack to me, is that the group's core mission is to preserve Israel as a "Jewish democracy." Though maybe I should ask J Street if it believes the Law of Return as currently written and implemented is undemocratic.
This is unworthy of Goldberg's talents. It would also be unworthy of our time if Goldberg were not a well-regarded journalist, burying those talents under cozy prejudices that are shared widely among decent American Jews; people who do not have the time Goldberg has to get things right or think things through; people who look to Goldberg to give them direction.
1. Yes, I wrote a book called the Tragedy of Zionism in 1985. William Appleman Williams wrote a book called the Tragedy of American Diplomacy. This did not mean he was opposed to American diplomacy. Tragedy does not mean catastrophe except, perhaps, to tyro reporters covering car accidents on the local news ("This is Shannon Williams reporting from the scene of the tragedy.") Tragedy means we cannot fully undertand the implications of our actions.
The Tragedy of Zionism argued that the Zionist revolution put up a kind of scaffolding in the Palestinian Yishuv, institutions that made great sense in their day, but which were never taken down when the state was organized. In effect, Israel has continued for the past 60 years as two Jewish states: a democratic, Hebrew-speaking civil society (the real triumph of historic Zionism), and, encased by this "Hebrew republic," an heroic settler-state that, covering itself in neo-Zionist rhetoric, gives material privileges to certified Jews, and requires an official rabbinate to certify them.
I argued that this embedded settler state threatens the coherence of Israeli democracy and, thus, the survival of Israel, given the understandable alienation felt by Israel's one-fifth Arab minority. Tragedy, you see, does not come from doing the wrong thing but the right thing too long. I won't say more about this here; readers of my blog posts surely know the arguments by now.
2. Since Goldberg brought this up, let's look at the Law of Return in this context, a perfect example of an institution fit for its day which is now both unnecessary and inflammatory.
Let me be clear: it makes sense for Israel to have an immigration law that gives (what Canada calls) "landed immigrant" status to anyone who can show that he is a refugee from anti-Semitism; or even give preference to someone who can explain to an immigration officer why he reasonably counts himself a member of the historic Jewish people. All western democracies have had messy criteria like this (i.e., claims about persecution, quotas based on ethnicity). The point is, they also then have a process of naturalization, so that citizenship is granted only after immigrants learn the language and culture and civil laws of the country.
The Law of Return, which grants immediate citizenship to anyone who can prove to a rabbi that he is Jewish according to Halacha, or has a one Jewish grandparent (i.e., anyone Hitler would have called "Jewish"), precludes the idea that citizenship requires naturalization: that Israeli identity is something that can be learned, acquired. It makes a nonsense of the idea that Arabs or any other minority can be Israeli. Leave Brookline, get on a plane, poof, citizen.
This law, in other words, makes the idea of an inclusive Israeli nationality (a patently Jewish nationality, that might assimilate others) impossible. Goldberg says he cannot see "a well-articulated vision of what a progressive Jewish democratic Israel should look like." He might if he opened is eyes to precisely what I'm talking about; to standards that are second nature to people all over the Western world. Why not simply bring Israel up to code? The notion that the Law of Return is "the raison d'etre of Zionism, and of Israel's existence" is so much bond-dinner blather. The law made sense for a revolutionary time of ingathering. It makes no sense for a multi-cultural, global Hebrew (that is, Jewish national) democracy.
3. Which brings me to Goldberg's last dig: that my views are "very different from the mainstream Zionist position." Since I have chosen to live mostly in Jerusalem, I am not sure what mainstream position I have to belong to, well, belong. I consider myself a cultural Zionist in the tradition of Achad Haam, Weizmann, and Ben-Gurion; I think everything was worth it just to get Yehuda Amichai's poetry. Anyway, some rightist jurists, like Ruth Gavison, have problems much like I do with the Law of Return, as Ben-Gurion had problems with the persistence of all Zionist institutions after the movement so obviously succeeded in achieving its goals.
Yet the sheer superficiality of Goldberg's dig does not render it harmless. Israel's future is not unchallenged and its citizens are not without real enemies. To call someone anti-Zionist in this context is a way of announcing they are traitors to living, struggling fellow citizens, in my case, students and friends I love. It like calling someone unpatriotic or anti-American.
Back when I published The Tragedy of Zionism, the guardian of the mainstream du jour, The New Republic, reviewed the book and put on its cover, "Jew Against Zion"--in consequence of which I was subject to a blackballing in Jewish organizations (and most mainstream media) of the kind alleged "Reds" had been subject to a generation before. It was shameful for the magazine's editors to have engaged in this kind of thing then. It is shameful for Goldberg to engage in it now.
Advertisement
Bravo
October 22, 2009 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bernard as much as I like to disagree with some of your positions you have the righteous position here. But "last word"? Commentary has an article calling you an "antizionist". Somebody with the last name of 'Pollak' making this charge. Is that the same AEI flack that helped lead the US into the Iraq war? Whatever, you are attracting some serious attacks. Continue to fight back. Best by just pointing out their bankrupt positions, you do not have to defend your previous writings, they stand on their own.
October 22, 2009 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
What youre saying is completely true. i agree with you.
children health
January 11, 2011 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do agree with all the ideas you have presented in your post. They’re very convincing and will definitely work. Still, the posts are very short for starters. Could you please extend them a bit from next time? Thanks for the post.by healthy families and child health plus
March 23, 2011 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can't the two of you just write each other letters? So much overshare.
October 22, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh I disagree. I'm not sure 'enjoy' is the best word. But I'm reading this exchange very closely. And am glad I have.
October 22, 2009 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it's your blog, Josh. But I think you may not appreciate just how exclusionary these kinds of discussions are. This site is frequently dominated by what amount to purely intra-Jewish discussions on the nature of true Jewishness or true Zionism; on who is a good Jew and who is a bad Jew; on who is a loyal Jew and who is a disloyal Jew; on which Jews love Israel and which Jews don't love Israel - in other words, on issues about which it is impossible, or at least awkward and inappropriate, for non-Jews to have and offer an opinion. More fun for MJ, Bernard, Jo-ann, Brad the Dad, AnnaM, bslev, Armchair Guerilla, and others with skin in the game. But the rest of us are out locked out.
In his earlier piece, Goldberg said,
... but it is inaccurate and Jewishly wrong for J Street's right-leaning political adversaries to argue that the group as a whole represents some sort of manifestation of Jewish self-hatred.
Jewishly wrong? As though there is a special version of morality that is made by Jews and for Jews, and applies only to Jews. Bernard took issue with many things in Goldberg's post, but this bizarre locution wasn't one of them. I guess he was more interested in proving that he was not a "Jewishly wrong" bad Jew.
Sadly, you have demonstrated a very pronounced ethnic bias in your recruitment of front page writers. If your ambition is to turn this site into a liberal version of Commentary, and make TPM Cafe America's premier liberal Jewish blog, then just say so. Otherwise, you might want to take more active steps to promote inclusiveness and universality and not sponsor quite so many discussions from which the many non-Jewish visitors to the site are essentially barred by the extremely sectarian nature of the topic. For many of these discussions, it is as though there is a sign on them reading,
JEWS ARGUING WITH JEWS ABOUT JEWISHNESS ... GOYIM STAY OUT!
On the other hand, if you think internal sectarian and ethnic group discussions have their value within the broader progressive discourse, then why not at least open the options up more? I'm sure there are progressive Catholics who would like to discuss the true nature of Catholic fealty; progressive mainline Protestants who would like to debate the proper direction of the evolving Christian Church; Muslims who would like to debate who is and isn't committed to the ummah in the appropriate way, etc.
Of course, to make space for a broader and more inclusive discussion you might have to clear away a little bit of the advertising clutter.
October 22, 2009 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok... "Jewishly wrong" is kindof an odd construction, granted.
But tell me you did not just use "skin in the game" in this context.
;-)
October 22, 2009 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan:
With all due respect, I don't agree with you. Since you mentioned me as one with "skin in the game" (perhaps less so because of my circumcision), let me make two threshold points: (1) Until the last couple of weeks I had not written a single comment at the Cafe in approximately four months, i.e. from early June until at or about the beginning of this month. I make no apologies for posting about Israel. I do have a day job, one I'm proud of, and one which has literally taken me to every corner of this country, my country, over the summer on behalf of working people--almost all of whom I believe were not Jewish--in very tough times, but if I choose to post about Israel I do so without apologies to those who may think it's ethnocentric or something, but I submit that I have skin in the game about a helluva lot more than matters concerning Israel. Second, I would submit that there are few posters, Jew or Gentile, who have posted as regularly about Israel as you have, so I will assume that for whatever reason Israel is an issue that is important to you even though you are not Jewish.
Now I've read your posts for almost three years and find them well-written and logical and often provocative, and based principally and consistently on your view that Israel is a neo-colonial state that has stolen land from native peoples and is propped up by the United States. I remember when you posted recently that an Obama Adminisitration official's comments about what he or she saw as shortcomings in the Goldstone report, and you wrote that the comments made you ashamed to be an American. Respectfully, I don't accept that the issues raised in your myriad posts about Israel are unimportant to you. In short, you seem to have more than a bit of skin in this game as well.
Now you may think that the bloggers selected by Josh Marshall fail to represent a broad-section of folks who should post about these matters, and in some ways you're correct. But I think it's a bit misleading to focus on the fact that it's just Jews who post, which is what I get from your critique of Josh's stable of writers. The debates raised by the writers are not Jewish debates and only Jewish debates; these are the debates underlying what American policy has been and should be in the future.
Stripped to its essence, and moving away from whether Bernie has properly construed Goldberg's blogs to prove that Goldberg is boycotting the conference because of the views of Bernie, the two are engaged in an absolutely fascinating debate about both the meaning of zionism at one level, and what J Street should be doing in a political sense at another level. The two are inextricably intertwined, and to some extent it is inside baseball. I find the debate about the law of return for Jews to Israel and Bernie's views about a future Hebrew republic to be absolutely riveting and incredibly thought-provoking. For that reason I have wholeheartedly recommended Avishai's most recent book to all, inluding you, who want to understand both the facts on the ground as well as the ideological, political and, yes, theoretical underpinnings for those facts, which as you know are often ugly.
But there is also an American political debate going on here, even if you see it being dominated on these pages and perhaps beyond by Jews. The debate among Jews is hardly new, as my Dad told me long ago that everywhere you have two Jews you'll find three temples (mine, yours, and the one I would never step foot in). But here, the imtramural squabble is critical if you believe, as your written record suggests you believe, that American policy toward Israel is important. What's going on here is a critical debate about the direction J Street should take politically. Putting aside the merits of Goldberg's debate with Avishai over the meaning of zionism and the role of the right of return for all Jews (which by the way Avishai himself took advantage of four decades ago when he made aliyah from Canada where he was not, I presume, subjected to persecution as a Jew), the two are also debating where J Street should be in terms of its political pursuit of more aggressive support for an American role in attaining a just and lasting two-state solution. With respect to Avishai, I don't think J Street succeeds if it fails to appreciate and if it does not respect the views of the great swath of American Jews about matters like the right of any Jew (however defined and as Avishai writes it's not easy to do that), including those in Brooklyn and Brookline, to be granted immediate citizenship in Israel. And, I submit, if you ask anyone who speaks for J Street, they will express unequivocal support for the right of return (whether they believe it in their heart or not), because that is the position that it needs to take politically.
My principal point is that J Street, to be effective politically, has to tread a fine line and embrace the American Jewish community, warts and all and such as it is, with respect and understanding and love, and demonstrate that such respect is not at all inconsistent with, and in fact fully consistent with, the pursuit of a just and lasting peaceful resolution of the I-P conflict. That's why I have consistently disagreed and have taken on those, particularly MJ, who incessantly mock and ridicule old Jews, and status quo Jews, and bond dinner Jews, and Hebrew School Jews, and all of those Jews and all of that jazz. With respect to all who take that approach, it is ultimately and at best a short-sighted view, even if they dispute this father of four and posit that the next generation (it has always been the next generation) will forget about Israel. Without the support of the entire Jewish community minus the exremists on both "sides", J Street will, literally, begin with a bang and end with a whimper. Now maybe from your perspective that kind of inside baseball stuff is like whipping a dead horse around here. But if you believe that the American Jewish community is an important political force and that the issue of the I-P conflict is an important American foreign policy issue, then I think you need to try to appreciate the significance of what's going on with those with the Jewish skin in the game.
Finally, that said, perhaps it would be great to have more diverse voices around here. But that doesn't mean that the discussion that is taking place, generally with your regular participation, is insignificant, or at least lacks potential for significance. Cheers.
Bruce
October 23, 2009 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce, maybe if someone tells you they feel excluded, you should think more about why they feel excluded instead of rushing to lecture them on why they are wrong to feel excluded.
The dominant approach taken by the posters at TPM goes well beyond the discussion of Israel-related issues from a US policy perspective, and frequently consists of very much Jewish-focused discussions on what sorts of attitudes toward Israel make one a good Jew or a Bad Jew, a loyal Jew or a disloyal Jew. I would submit that a good many of these discussions have the feel, for non-Jews, of internal discussions among Catholics about whether someone can be a good and faithful Catholic if they practice birth control or eat meat on Friday.
The fact that I am free to barge into these discussions if I so choose doesn't bear on their exclusionary content. It is no different from the fact that you personally are free to enter into discussions about the true meaning of Christmas, or whether to take Communion if you have not taken part in the Sacrament of Penance in two weeks. If your workplace email exchanges were dominated by such discussions, I suspect you would understand how they exclude others.
The percentage of Jewish writers at TPM Cafe far exceeds the percentage of Jews in either (a) America as a whole, (b) the Democratic party, or (c) the progressive wing of the Democratic party. Why is that? If you found such a phenomenon anywhere else, involving any other group, you would have no problem recognizing that the pattern was likely evidence of bigotry.
October 23, 2009 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find it telling that you complain about feeling excluded here, on the other side of the cafe you have complained bitterly about "cliques."
Perhaps I was right and you are still not getting over being the last one picked for games in elementary school.
October 23, 2009 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps I was right and you are still not getting over being the last one picked for games in elementary school.
Well if you really want to play armchair psychologist, this strikes me aa an absolutely ridiculous interpretation. People who don't like participating in chit chat within groups or the inside baseball gossip within elite groups would be the kind of people that didn't give a damn whether they were picked or not. Or in a different personality scenario, might have been the one picking the team, those types don't often have much interest in that type of thing, either.
Myself, I prefer people not do armchair psychology of other commenters on sites like this and instead address what they say. But that's just me, I don't know how many others do.
October 23, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Dan, it was hardly my intention to be insensitive to your feeling of exclusion, and I apologize for leaving you with that impression. I apologize for that sincerely. I have to submit that your frequent and regular participation in these discussions has been more than butting in every now and then, and has been far more meaningful and relevant in an American political sense than any contribution I might offer about a discussion of Christmas. I did and continue to try to understand your point, and I do understand and do not disagree with you (and I wrote this I think) to the extent that your point is that we should have a more diversified stable of writers around here. I have also written steadily and consistently that I object to base discussions about who is s a good Jew and who is a bad Jew (as distinuished from who has the right approach politically) and, indeed, such objections have been the essence of my frequent disagreements with MJ Rosenberg.
Beyond that, I confess that, other than counting Jews relative to their numbers in the overall population, I don't understand your point about counting Jews. Jews do have a larger role, relative to their numbers in the overall population, in many arenas and I don't consider it suggestive of bigotry. I assume you were making a different point because I don't think you think those kind of statistics are a symptom of bigotry either.
That said, it sounds like I offended you and please accept my sincere apology.
October 23, 2009 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, clearly I'm in a bad mood Bruce, so no apology necessary.
I guess only Josh can say whether the very high proportion of posts by Jewish writers at TPM Cafe, and the high incidence of intra-Jewish debates about Jewish identity, loyalty and betrayal, are due to accident, deliberate choice or a personal preference for Jews.
October 23, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you found such a phenomenon anywhere else, involving any other group, you would have no problem recognizing that the pattern was likely evidence of bigotry.
Hmmm, I think you're going off in the wrong direction there with that summation, even for what you what to say.
Seems to me what you've really often been advocating for is cosmopolitanism vs. tribalism in editorial offerings?
The quandary there for you, though, is that tribes comes in all kinds of flavors...there's Facebook socializing clique kinds of tribes, political action group kinds of tribes, east coast elite foreign policy academic kinds of tribes, DC politico junkie kinds of tribes, and yes, race kinds of tribes....and you yourself might like following discussions within some of them. So unless you apply the cosmpolitanism across the board, others might think the same of you.
See this thread and comments:
We Need To Be More Like The Jews!
21 Oct 2009 11:00 am
Ta-Neishi Coates blog @ The Atlantic
If you wander across a bunch of black bloggers talking 'hood talk, about black community problems, are they being racist? Most people wouldn't call it that. Probably one thing you can say for sure is that they are not being cosmopolitan.
My two cents (a shiksha): when U.S. commentators/lobbyists/specialists on Israel/Palestine, whatever you wanna call them, start taking it personal most of the time, when it seems that they care more about their own reputation and job and status in their little world, and have certain personal enemies they attack all the time, and when all they basically talk about is how much they hate this other DC guy or Israeli guy or that other DC group or Israeli group and how they operate, it strikes me that they don't really care much about Israel or Palestine or Israelis or Palestinians, they care about something else (something I don't happen to be interested in.) If they really cared about the issues/problem, they'd talk about them sometimes, rather than always attack what that other guy they don't like said today. Avishai does talk about Israel and Palestine, often.
(And in the end, the latter is really the spin wars problem, where people end up spending far too much time caring more about what Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck said than what is actually going on in the country or the world, and yes, DanK, if that's what you don't like about TPM editiorial slant, I agree with you.)
October 23, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cosmopolitanism would by one way to go, AA. Another would be to permit the blog to be used to promote the public airing of intra-sectarian debates, but to provide more equal opportunity for other groups to do their thing.
I grew up in a (Roman) Catholic family myself. There are 67 million Catholics in the US, of which somewhere between 35% and 40% are estimated to be Democrats. That makes about five times more Catholic Democrats in the US than there are US Jews combined. Where is the "Catholic Corner" at TPM Cafe? I'm sure even non-Catholics would be most entertained by the stories about pilgrimages and whatnot to the Vatican; about accusations going back at forth about who is and is not a faithful Catholic; about the latest news from the enclaves and councils; about the doings of the various competing Catholic lobbying organizations; about which ostensible Catholics are actually diabolical Catholic-haters, and which ostensible non-Catholics are actually clandestine crypto-Catholics; about the raging debates on encyclicals, infallibility and whatnot. And then of course: abortion, abortion, abortion.
I grew up around that stuff. Big time fun!
Of course, these topics are all the rage in the Catholic press. But Catholics tend to keep their really insider Catholic stuff off to the side when participating in broader public fora, and save those particular torments for each other. But why, on places like TPM Cafe, are Jews constantly dragging their members-only tribal donnybrooks out into the public sphere?
Now, again, maybe its healthier for this stuff to get pulled out into the sunshine, where everyone can pile on and join in the fun. But then why the privileged position of only intra-Jewish debates at TPM Cafe? Why not more groups?
October 23, 2009 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan, I am not sure what I write here is really meant only for Jews about Jews, though I should have worked harder to show why. Anyway, I just returned from Poland, and feel passionate that the question of how nations survive in political forms, how they treat minorities, how democracies adapt to the contradictions,how demagogues use claims of patriotism to undermine the standards of civil society--all of these things--are universal questions that have plagued us for a couple of hundred years. Still, I find you consistently fair minded and agree that when we speak, we should understand who is in the room. I apologize for the implication that non-Jews may have nothing to contribute here. After all, I am not Catholic but feel brotherhood with Jim Carroll and his struggles. I would want to know that you could feel this way about mine, and I should have taken the time to earn your consideration.
October 23, 2009 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
To me some of the issue is the obscurity of the players. You know, Goldberg just doesn't mean much to me. You and MJ and Sleeper do because I read you all here. And it's not I/P issues I feel excluded from, it's the play by play on this inside baseball war going on. Admittedly, I'm not big into the NFL either so if you all started talking about defensive coaches taking snipes at each other I'd feel just as left out but, sheesh, there's a LOT of this lately.
October 23, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bernard, your posts are top-rate, so you don't need to apologize for anything. My negative reaction, as I've tried to make more clear in subsequent comments, is not about any single post, considered as standing alone, or even any single author, but rather a broader pattern.
October 23, 2009 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yours is the sort of gracious remark that I expect from someone of your humane sensibilities, Bernard.
The Jim Carroll reference is helpful to me in understanding your mindset. If you were to ask Jim if he would be pleased or displeased if the effect of his work is to open up psychological space for non-Catholics as well as Catholics to criticize particular Church practices or doctrines, without being knee-jerk accused of being "anti-Catholic", what do you believe his response would be? My guess is: pleased. He would see that as doing a good deed.
As a Jewish American who has written, very infrequently, but once prominently some years back, criticizing Israeli settlements policies and the American response, or relative non-response, to those policies, I can tell you that part of my hope and intent was to open up space for non-Jews at the site to voice criticisms of Israel without being accused of being "anti-Israel" or "anti-Semitic" on that account.
This was partly because there was at least one cafe regular at the time, Jewish and with initials dg, who hasn't commented here for a long time under the name he used back then, who I felt *was* far too quick to accuse people criticizing such policies as anti-Semitic or anti-Israel on that account. He did sometimes have worthwhile substantive points to make, I thought.
Members of a particular "in" group can facilitate freer, more open and candid exchanges of views when they seek to legitimize and make it emotionally safer for members of "out" groups to voice criticisms, hopefully respectfully offered.
That was the spirit in which I wrote. I believe Bernard very much shares that mindset, where he wants to help make it "safe" for non-Jews as well as Jews to discuss issues candidly and contribute their best thinking.
Personally, I don't give a damn whether someone thinks I'm a good or a bad Jew. There isn't anyone who can mau mau me into taking any political line by telling me if I don't adopt it, then I'm a "bad Jew."
I try to think, rather, in terms of trying to be a decent person, and a contributing and constructive citizen. All of us being products of our experiences, I'm sure some of what the religious school teachers thought they were teaching that I wasn't learning, and some of the atmospherics, seeped in in ways I'll probably never understand. That seems a given for anyone exposed to one or more religious traditions.
Re Dan K's point about feeling excluded, I can certainly understand that. I am wondering if there are any of us who have not felt ignored or unwelcome in certain conversations, not understanding references or feeling as though those doing the talking care if we do or not? I hope the invited contributors and denizens alike will not inadvertently communicate that the views of non-Jews on any of these matters are somehow unwelcome.
As for the expressed desire for greater diversity of topics, sure, I would welcome that as well as an improvement. Even understanding that the factors that lead invited contributors to stick around are many and complicated, hopefully there would be success in expanding the ranks of invited folks writing on matters other than the ones referred to in this thread, at least on a trial basis.
Some invited contributors over the years who I thought were really thoughtful and interesting didn't draw much response and left after awhile. William Fletcher was one--I see he has an interesting book out now on the labor movement. There was a FP commentator whose name now escapes me who was soft-spoken in tone but I thought had good insights and he's no longer here. Maggie Mahar, of course, I wish she would come back. A self-conscious effort to identify more women and minorities, including religious minorities (or pluralities or majorities!) with interesting things to say (not saying there haven't been such efforts--I wouldn't know, and I think Josh is sympathetic but also probably way over-extended) might yield some interesting results.
October 24, 2009 6:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry you feel excluded, Dan. As one of those Progressive Mainline Protestants (Presbyterian, in my case), I do not feel excluded by these conversations. In fact, the diaries by Rosenberg and Avishai are the main reason I come to TPM. Unfortunately, the admins of other large Progressive blogs either ignore I/P issues entirely or handle them badly.
America's relationship to Israel plays an important role in our foreign policy and domestic politics. The Republican Party is so dominated by the disciplined forces of the Religious Right, among whom Christian Zionists are a core constituency, that it is incapable at this point of providing leadership for peace in the Middle East. If the Democratic Party is going to show any leadership in this area, the grassroots must foster discussion among its constituencies that have given Israel a free pass for decades (or at least have allowed hardline organizations to claim that they speak for everybody).
J Street is an important part of this change, as are discussions about Jewish identity and Zionism. I too have noted that some of the commentary here becomes:
And sometimes I feel qualified to comment and sometimes I don't. These conversations need to be taking place whether I participate or not. Even when I don't comment, I often benefit from reading the discussions.
That doesn't mean that other conversations and diary topics shouldn't be elevated as well. I don't notice a higher level of Jewish reporters or talking heads on this site than in American media in general. But are there other voices (perhaps that don't get exposure in the MSM) that could be added to a Progressive site? I would like to see more Muslim and Arab American voices on the big blogs.
Of course, if you're looking for Mainline Protestants, there are still some of us around (although Frederick Clarkson could tell you about how the IRD has been undermining the NCC and Mainline Churches for decades). I'm sure I could find a few Presbyterians who could tell you about our experience with the Israel Lobby since our GA voted for selective divestment in 2004.
October 23, 2009 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rusty Pipes,
US policy toward Israel is an important issue on which all Americans probably should have an opinion, and about which it is possible to have a broad national discussion on the basis of principles, commitment and values that are widely shared. But how Jewish Americans in particular feel about Israel, and about one another, as they go about relating to Israel is not nearly such an important issue for the vast majority of Americans who are not Jewish.
Personally, I don't really feel that I - and other non-Jewish Americans - have an appropriate role to play in the ongoing discussions about Aipac vs. J Street. J Street was consciously designed, it appears, as an alternative Jewish lobby, through which Jewish people can express a different and more constructively critical form of advocacy for Israel than than the form that characterizes the Aipac line. J Street appears to be having some success, since its opponents have now started attacking it in earnest. But that's none of my business. The organizers decided to call the group "J Street", not "America Street". It is intended as a club for Jews, not for others.
I don't know how J Street's war for hearts, minds and wallets will turn out. However, we can safely say one thing: after it all shakes out, and even if J Street succeeds beyond their wildest dreams and becomes the dominant US player in the field of Israel policy, US policy toward Israel and the broader Middle East will still be whatever some relatively small group of American Jews wants it to be. Maybe that group will be dominated by Ben-Ami and his friends. Maybe it will be dominated by Steve Rosen and his friends. But the fundamental problem remains: and that problem is that our foreign policy toward a very important region of the world is being determined by an exclusive sectarian lobby representing the interests and passionate attachments of only a small fraction of Americans.
Why do our presidents, our senators and our representatives need a lobby comprised predominantly of one particular ethnic group to tell them what our policy should be toward foreign countries? And why do they listen so much to that one group? Aren't the politically responsible and statesmanlike policies the one's that reflect the interests of the broadest possible group of Americans?
October 23, 2009 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
M.J. and Bernard are great - good writers who write what they care about with insight and passion.
Lately, though, TPM Cafe has been a bit overwhelmed with posts about Israel, J Street and AIPAC. I care about these issues because they affect my country, and I like to read the posts because I like a good food fight, but I would appreciate more variety in the mix.
There are so many other matters I care about (do I have to list them?). Some days, the only blogs covering them are the reader blogs in the inner right sidebar.
Listen, there are very good, very thoughtful front page bloggers here, including Robert Reich, Dean Baker, Jon Taplin, Jim Sleeper, and many more. To the extent you're hearing complaints, its an editorial issue, not anything to do with individual bloggers. A little more variety would generate more interest and participation. At least, more of my interest and participation.
October 23, 2009 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know Bernard might be scared that his letters will end up in Jeffery's weird advice column.
Actually I would love to see that. But I am with Bernard this time even though I might have drank too much beer or TV once.
October 22, 2009 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
drinking TVs?
Oy, that musta been some hangover!
October 23, 2009 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well stated, Bernard, however, I think Goldberg should be careful looking backwards, because of how dead wrong his sabre-rattling prognostications about Iraq turned out to be:
As far as I know, its been well over five years since Goldberg wrote this, yet he has received no laurels for predicting this 'act of profound morality,' yet, he is likely too busy to accept, now that there are new sabres to rattle.
October 22, 2009 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to laugh when Goldberg accuses Avishai, who chooses to live in Zion and not Boston, of being anything other than a mainstream Zionist.
I think Herzl, Ahad Ha'am and Jabotinsky would all agree that Bernie is, by definition, a Zionist.
He chooses Zion. Goldberg does not. And I don't either (despite 50 trips and God knows how many relatives, I have never considered living anywhere but here). Am I a Zionist? Clearly, I'm not. But I do support Israel and work for policies that will enable it to live in security.
Unfortunately the Americans who tend to call themselves Zionists tend to be on the right and ignorant of Jewish history. They think Zionism means really, really supporting everything the Israeli government does. Or AIPAC wants. These are the people whose knowledge of Israel and Judaism can be summed up in 140 characters of a Twitter post. The dumbing down of the Jews.
I admire Avishai's Zionism. He lives it. I don't share it and I willingly admit that. I think the American Jewish community is as vital and central to Jewish survival as Israel. Bernie votes against that proposition with his feet and the rest of him too.
My exception to the rule that the post-'48 Zionists must live in Israel is Label Fein. Somehow he carries Zion inside him even in Massachusetts. But he's the only one. In the world.
October 22, 2009 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has to be the dumbest MJ post yet. So all Jews who live in Israel are Zionists and all Jews in the diaspora are not? And there's only one exception to this rule in the entire world?
Where do you come up with this stuff?
October 23, 2009 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was a joke but you'd have to know who Label is. But since your temple bulletin never mentions him and he wasn't part of that one week in Israel you spent on the Mens Club trip, how would you know. Time for another visit, Brad. Ask the rabbi. This one may include Tel Aviv too!
October 23, 2009 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
You hit a nerve, MJ.
Our last parish priest was originally from Southern Ireland and his first posting in the US was in Boston. Suffice it to say, he grew very tired of the South Boston "Plastic Paddies" (his phrase) yacking about Ol' Eire while actually being American to the core.
October 23, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just waiting to see if that BMW repairman gets drawn into this debate.
October 22, 2009 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quinn. Just in the nick of time. :)
October 22, 2009 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a Chicano from the Sonoran Desert, I think it's wonderful that the TPM has a viable entity that speaking to the Jewish Experience, here in American and in Israel, and yet, I find I am not excluded from this conversation. As such, having the many and varied voices expressing themselves, adds more import and impact to this overall discussion.
And said sadly on my part, my view is focused on "immigration" and which is the commonality that I find with what I am undergoing here on the border between the USA and Mexico. The distinctive difference is that the John Bircheristas are all out and about and making themselves well known and represented, and moreso, since the late Senator Barry Goldwater gave strong political cover to this reprehensible perspective. Thus, the tentacles of this criminal stupidity, continues to this day. Consequently, the Youngsters have to slay this dragon once and for all before Progress can continue unabated.
And one of the questions asked but not answered was the consolidation of both the USA and Mexico. To wit, America's national security apparatus "gamed" this scenario many years ago, and found that having an additional 72 Senators in Congress and pre-dominately Spanish-speaking, would move the taxpayers' largesse into a far differing pattern for further distribution. Thusly, economic self-interest intrudes and supersedes the 'human dimension' of Societal Progress.
In closing, my hat tip to Bernie for understanding and addressing "immigration" and which is one of the core issues facing the Israeli Society. Now, if I could get Bernie "talking" to my Spanish-speaking community, we both would understand that we have much more in common than what divides us.
Jaango
October 23, 2009 4:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jeffrey Goldberg has three on-point blogposts over at the Atlantic, the links to which I post here:
First, Goldberg responds to Avishai's blogpost and, to my dismay, calls Avishai dishonest for continuing to claim that Goldberg ever said that he was boycotting the J Street Conference:
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/
I am dismayed by the spat between Avishai and Goldberg because I think it detracts from a pretty interesting debate, and also because they are both authors of two of the four books that I have read about Middle East issues this year, each of which I would recommend. For what it's worth, I agree with Goldberg that he never wrote that he was boycotting the conference, but I also think that he unfairly characterized Avishai as an anti-zionist. But I'm just a Hebrew School fkunkie (who used to get suspended all the time) who has only been able to afford a couple of trips to Israel, so what do I know? :-)
Second, Goldberg presents correspondence between himself and Leonard Fein of Americans for Peace Now, the Forward, Moment Magazine, etc., and one of my true heroes. The subject is the Law of Return discussed by Avishai above. Fein stakes out a middle ground between Avishai, who appears to reject the notion that the right of reuturn was ever a central underlying tenet of zionism, and Goldberg, who continues to believe that the right of return is the central, underlying tenet of zionism. Fein, who apparently is also a hero of MJ Rosenberg--who jokingly called him the only real zionist in America--thinks that the right of return was of central importance to zionism at one point, but that it has come to be more of a burden than a benefit in modern-day Israel:
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/10/should_there_be_a_time_limit_o.php
Finally, Goldberg scores really scores with a lengthy interview with Jeremy Ben-Ami, who of course heads J Street. It's a fabulous interview. Among other things, Ben-Ami stakes out positions that, to my delight, appear to be no different than my own on matters ranging from Walt and Mearsheimer to the Right of Return (which he supports wholeheartedly).
Triangulation? Maybe. Smart politics? You bet. Check it out:
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/10/j_streets_ben-ami_on_being_a_z.php
Bruce S. Levine
New York, New York
October 23, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Walt and Measheimer have done more to bring honesty to American public debate than any other Americans for the last 40 years.
They are national treasures.
Their opponents? Not so much....
October 23, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well apparently the head of J Street is one of those opponents.
October 23, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, Bruce, you don't have to agree with everything that someone else says to believe that person is still making a positive contribution to the debate.
Try to learn a little nuance, dude.
October 23, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
i read the interview between goldberg and ben-ami. ben-ami wants to persuade the israeli to move the peace process forward, not by using any kind of leverage by the US, but by using some kind of magical, special words behind closed doors, "some serious, behind-closed-doors conversations", as he says. no wonder he can get along with obama who also believes in the powers of special speeches.
the US should be using whatever leverage it can to move the peace process forward, including withdrawal of military aid.
the US is by its own laws is illegally giving military aid to israel because the symington amendment of 1976 prohibits US foreign aid to any country with nuclear enrichment equipment or technology outside international safeguards. israel has never signed the NPT. no-one with two communicating brain cells is fooled by this charade!
October 23, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually BluePearl, President Obama is going to slowly--but inevitably--adopt the policy positions of the GOI on Palestine. He will then send Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice around the world to drum up support for a "peace process" that produces lots of new settlements and no State of Palestine.
I think MJ is great. But he's in denial. Obama has already surrendered on Palestine. He will spend the next 7 years pressuring Arab states to normalize with Israel in exchange for nothing. As soon as the words, "We can't want peace more than the parties themselves," you will know he's fallen right into line with Netanyahu.
October 23, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Might someone care to explain the sudden more macho than thou "Zionist" litmus-testing going on here?
Wasn't Zionism a movement to establish a Jewish country in Palestine?
Wasn't that done in 1948?
Hasn't that country grown massively in strength since then, to the point where it can now invade its neighbors with impunity, and rely on the only nuclear arsenal in the region plus the further backstopping of the world's only superpower?
When former fellow US military officers Grant and Lee had their little disagreement in the early 1860s it certainly wasn't about who was more loyal to the Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation.
Wikipedia is not an anti-Zionist conspiracy (neither are Walt and Mearsheimer) when it says:
"J Street is a nonprofit advocacy group based in the United States that promotes American leadership to end the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Israel conflicts peacefully and diplomatically."
If Goldberg can't support that then let him explain his mental challenges to the ghost of Herzl. Who needs the support of someone who cannot manage to simply embrace common sense?
October 23, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guilty consciences, maybe?
The Zionists don't just want the land, they want to force the Palestinians to say that they never lived there.
October 23, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was thinking maybe greed, cowardice, and hypocrisy might explain the anti-J Street hysteria since the real Zionists of 1948 were willing to share Palestine with the natives, but the whining "Zionists" of today think they will be on their way back to Auschwitz if they even consider NOT expanding "settlement" land grab to prevent Arabs from getting even a fraction of what was offered in 1948. Your theory is also possible, but isn't it preconditioned on there being consciences involved to begin with?
What I don't get is why Bernard needs to give Goldberg the time of day on this, let alone thrash it out in public.
October 23, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I don't get is why Bernard needs to give Goldberg the time of day on this, let alone thrash it out in public.
he is an american jew who served in the IDF. that in itself gives you rank in the tribe. he has thus become the anointed go-to guy spokesman for the official jewish point of view in the MSN. when goldberg speaks, you're supposed to listen to him. barf!
October 23, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
An American Jew who serves in the IDF is, by definition, representative of pretty much nobody. American Jews -- even the far right crazy Likudniks -- never even consider serving in the IDF. If they want to serve in the military, they serve in ours.
Jeff served in the IDF which means that he does have solid standing there to comment on events, but less here.
Until 1968, serving in a foreign army cost one his citizenship.
I admire that Jeff put his money where his mouth is. But that action made him an utterly unrepresentative American Jew.
October 24, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, how about reversing that 1968 repeal? I am not a huge fan of giving automatic citizenship to foreigners simply because they join the US military (though after the chickenhawks' fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan America probably does need the extra volunteers) but it would be consistent to apply the same logic in reverse. How about it? And since any reinstatement of the no fighting in foreign armies rule could not be applied retroactively to the past 40 years presumably, how about holding hearings on the effects of that long repeal? Give the Goldbergs something to really squirm about. Maybe force a few expatriate settlers to move where they belong.
October 24, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Rosenberg
Re;
"...An American Jew who serves in the IDF is, by definition, representative of pretty much nobody."
If by this statement you meant to imply, that such a person would not be representative of American Jewry, than you would be correct. To say however, that such a person is representative of "nobody", seems to be less about fact and more about your antipathy toward an American Jew who would make such a choice.
I'm an American Jew who served in the IDF for 3 years. By virtue of this fact, it should be obvious that I was less interested in representing American Jewry and more interested in rejecting that paradigm and redefining for myself what it meant to be a jew, which in my case meant becoming an Israeli citizen, a kibbutznik, a farmer, and then a soldier, having found this model, more substantive and culturally satisfying. As such I would be representative of millions (or at least thousands) of Israelis who feel the same way.
To the chagrin of many American Jews (and their Israeli mentors) who make aliyah, it doesn't always work out. Goldberg is a case in point.
Re;
"...Jeff served in the IDF which means that he does have solid standing there to comment on events, but less here."
On the contrary. As I mentioned on Dr. Avishai's blog
"...Goldberg was never able to internalize being an Israeli, let alone appreciating their individual humanity. Since he was never able to "become" Israeli, an American Jew he remained. As such, he regularly regurgitates those suppositions that allow him to be seen as a team player by the establishment, while validating his inability to identify with actual Sabras of his own intellectual and emotional strata and thereby allowing for their humanity and individuality with all of its attendant nuanaces. I've always found his writings about Israelis to be of a suprisngly voyeuristic nature, accompanied by a nice sized helping of hero worship. While considered de rigeur for the American Jewish Establishment, I find it disconcerting in someone who had made aliyah and served in Zahal and is now thought to be a journalistic eminence grise.
October 25, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another Chicano Analogy on "immigration".
Therefore, let me call it our "Littlest Citizens".
When Undocumented Immigrant Parents are repatriated to their Nation of Origin, their children born here in the USA, migrate South with their Parents. And here is the dilemma. When an Elected or Appointed Official is asked a variety of questions relative to our "littlest citizens", no one has any answers to these irredeemly important questions. Thus, are our littlest citizens living in hovels, having access to decent health care, receiving three squares-a-day or nutrious meals, or for having access to qualitative and quantitative educational opportunities along with the all important tools for learning?
Therefore, if you ask you Elected and Appointed Official, you can, sure as I'm sitting at this keyboard, expect to get a blank stare of the dumbfounded.
Consequently, when the Spanish-speaking community gets around to addressing, in a somewhat monolithic manner, the I/P Conflict, the Jewish membership in our Democratic Coalition, may be taken aback at what is seen as more salient in terms of creating the two-state solution or perhaps, a more workable scenario as I understand and is possibly envisioned by Bernie, or for two socieities resting comfortably under one umbrella.
Currently, Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) is leading the Democratic charge in Congress for immigration reform, and of course, he is close to President Obama. As such, I have a request into Gutierrez's office for his response to the predicament facing our littlest citizens. And next week, I expect to be talking to him about the I/P Conflict as well. And if I can get him to go public and for the record, I will relay the details of the conversation.
Jaango
October 23, 2009 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goldberg, Goldstone, Goldhagen, Goldfinger - all are right and all are wrong.
It's not complex. When you have just 5m Israeli Jews, sitting in just 20,000 sq km on the eastern Mediterranean, intent on influencing the foreign policy of the entire global population of 6.5 billion people, over one billion of whom are Muslim, in nearly two hundred countries, and in part, succeeding - they you have a VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM.
The state of Israel needs to recognize who and what she really is, and those who support her - in preference to their own countries of residence - need to step back and reflect and what sort of world they are trying to achieve for their children and grandchildren. That future will be a world of nuclear conflict, brought about by unthinking men who mistakenly thought that they were doing good and helping to crystallize a biblical prophecy, and in doing so would ensure their place in heaven.
How extraordinarily naive can otherwise sophisticated, educated people be, to be working towards such a tragic future?
October 24, 2009 3:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, too much overshare.
Networking
October 25, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Behold! The Law of Return is perfect and in need of no amenedment;
"Alleged Jewish terrorist arrested for murder, series of bomb attacks"
"...Teitel, a resident of the northern West Bank outpost, was born in Florida and has moved back and forth between the United States and Israel over the last two decades. In 2000, he returned to Israeli to live permanently.
During a search of his home, police discovered rifles, handguns and explosive materials; they were unable, however, to find the gun which he allegedly used to kill the Palestinians...."
"...He even apparently claimed during his investigation to involvement in the attack on a gay-lesbian youth club in Tel Aviv, in which two people were killed. The Shin Bet has said, however, that there is not sufficient evidence at this point to tie him to that attack."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1125063.html
and
Who is suspected Jewish terrorist, Yaakov Teitel?
By Chaim Levinson, Haaretz Correspondent
"...Yaakov Teitel, who was arrested last month for suspected murder and a string of alleged murder attempts, was born in Florida in November 1972, the son of Mordehai (Mark) and Devorah (Dianne), American ultra-Orthodox Jews."
"...Teitel began making regular trips to Israel in the mid-1990s using a tourist visa, around the time the settler "hill op youth" began to form in the West Bank."
"...August 1997 marked Teitel's first run-in with the law, after he was arrested by the Shin Bet on suspicion of shooting Palestinian Isa Machmara, a Palestinian resident to death during a walk along the road near the settlement Carmel"
"...Teitel was always considered an outcast in Shvut Rachel, as a result of his limited proficiency in Hebrew and the family's tendency to stay indoors. Neighbors said that Teitel was hardly ever seen around the settlement, and that he didn't take regular part in services in the local synagogue."
Other residents of the settlement agreed that Teitel was a little-known, low-key introvert, unknown also to local far rightists and within the hilltop movement. According to a local source, Teitel "was somewhat active in the hilltop region, and people could recognize his face, but nothing beyond that."
Teitel did have, however, two acquaintances in Shvut Rachel: Avraham Richland, a 22-year-old former Kahanist, and fellow American native Yosef Eshpinoza. Eshpinoza, 50, had befriended Teitel after the latter aided him when he had fallen ill.
In 2005, Richland was arrested, and eventually released by police after it was discovered he had consorted with Eden Natan-Zada, an Israel Defense Forces deserter who opened fire in a bus in the northern Israeli town of Shfaram in 2005, murdering four Israeli Arabs."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1125062.html
Real piece of work, eh? Now according to Goldberg, this guy's the real zionist, the real jew. Funny. If Yaakov had his druthers, he would slit Jeffreys throat from ear to ear.
Dr. Avishai, I beleive the debate between Jeffrey and yourself is now officialy over
November 1, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Abercrombie and Fitch|Abercrombie and Fitch londonHow extraordinarily naive can otherwise sophisticated, educated people be, to be working towards such a tragic future?
August 18, 2010 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this topic ı like this website
kılıç günü izle
kılıç günü son bölüm izle
September 18, 2010 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
ister ister inanma ama bu gercek
by sohbet
November 4, 2010 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for useful information!
Best regards, Mary, CEO of youtube download
December 16, 2010 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
That future will be a world of nuclear conflict, brought about by unthinking men who mistakenly thought that they were doing good and helping to crystallize a biblical prophecy, and in doing so would ensure their place in heaven. imobiliare | dezmembrari auto
February 6, 2011 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Second, I would submit that there are few posters, Jew or Gentile, who have posted as regularly about Israel as you have, so I will assume that for whatever reason Israel is an issue that is important to you even though you are not Jewish. anunturi gratuite
February 6, 2011 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great informative post thanks for sharing.....
buy degree
degree program
April 7, 2011 3:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just want to emphasize the good work on this , has excellent views and a clear vision of what you are looking for
masters degree programs
April 7, 2011 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm writing a thesis about Zionism right now, and it was a great luck to find this post, cause here are many useful links and names, that could be good addition to the topic. Thank you.
April 20, 2011 6:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
like long story,thanks
all clad anaerobic respiration
April 29, 2011 6:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
car transport, car shipping, car transport, car transportation, vehicle shipping, car transport.
May 4, 2011 2:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
car transport, car shipping, car transport, car transportation, vehicle shipping, car transport.
May 4, 2011 2:16 AM | Reply | Permalink