Scorching. Max Blumenthal Eviscerates The Lobby's Best Friends (Videos Too)
This is a must read and a must watch, especially now that AIPAC and its friends are struggling to deal with the J Street phenomenon which, following its blockbuster of a conference, is now a force they must reckon with.
Max Blumenthal takes on the Israeli ambassador, Elie Wiesel, John Hagee, Jeff Goldberg and Michael Goldfarb in one beautiful piece of truth-telling.
Advertisement
blumenthal did not include in the alternet article on of his best phrases about the former israeli prison guard goldberg: The Chief Rabbi of a One-Man Island
October 29, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that the J Street Conference was a success despite and not because of people like Max Blumenthal. Keep in mind that Mr. Blumenthal spoke on a panel which J Street took pains to say was not officialy endorsed by J Street, a seemingly silly caveat but reflective of the ultimate challenge J Street faces in carving out an progressive "pro-Israel, pro-peace" lobby existing in a tent that is large enough to include folks like Blumenthal (as distinguished from the type of counterprouctive exclusionary venomous approach adopted once again by the author of the blogpost to which I respond).
Serious readers who are genuinely interested in the fine line that J Street must continue to tread between staking out a "pro-Israel and pro-Peace" position on the one hand, while catering to people like Max Blumenthal and MJ Rosenberg who apparently fail to look beyond their own narrow perspectives in concluding that it's smart politics to mock Elie Wiesel, I offer two real pieces of journailism, both from this week's Forward. One is by J.J. Goldberg (no relation to Jeff :)), and the other is by Leonrad Fein (whom even MJ Rosenberg admires):
http://www.forward.com/articles/117881/
http://www.forward.com/articles/117880/
In a real sense, I think that J Street offers a compellilng alternative to extremists on both "sides" of the American Jewish divide on Israel. and it is no simple task to be such an alternative. J Street, of course, is an alternative to the usual suspects, the "right or wrongers" in AIPAC and the ZOA and so forth. But, perhaps more significantly to those of us who post about the I-P issue on this website, I think the excerpt I offer below from J.J Goldberg's piece capsulates how J Street also provides an alternative to the extremists on the other wing (call it the Blumenthal and Rosenberg wing snd hardly a "left wing"), an alternative that: (1) welcomes divergent views, including people who are even afraid to say that they are "pro-Israel", but: (2) still stakes out a centrist position on the issues that focuses on the prize we should all be working for, to wit, a just and peaceful two-state solution in Israel and Palestine, with a shared Jerusalem and defensible and rational borders for the descendants of both Isaar and Ishmael. Thus, Goldberg writes:
"By advertising itself as a forum for free and open discussion of Israel, warts and all, the conference predictably attracted a contingent of Jews who are ambivalent or hostile toward Israel. They weren’t on the program, but they spoke up in breakout sessions and gathered in clusters in the hallways. Some came to paint Israel as the guilty party and argue for sweeping Israeli concessions without regard for Israel’s security. Some opposed the very idea of Jewish statehood. Most came to Washington expecting to help shape J Street’s goals and gain political influence for their views.
"What they found was an organization that defines itself as wholly committed to Israeli security, that favors an Israeli-Palestinian accord as a way to ensure Israel’s security as a Jewish state. If that wasn’t obvious beforehand, J Street’s architect and executive director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, pointedly drew a line in the sand in an October 23 interview with journalist Jeffrey Goldberg (full disclosure: not me) on the Web site of The Atlantic.
Bruce S. Levine
New York, New York
October 29, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know how to use the block quote mechanism, so please note that the final two piences are in fact directly quoted from J.J. Goldberg's piece that I link to in my comment above. Apologies for the luddite in me.
October 29, 2009 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...defensible and rational borders..."
Yes, Bruce, very nice. As long as the Palestinians get borders that are defensible AGAINST the Israelis. If the "reasonable" two state solution includes limits on the Palestinians right to have a foreign policy, make treaties, drill wells, and develop like a real nation, the whole exercise is a waste of time. (It would be just a glorified version of Natanyahu's "economic peace." That, of course, is apartheid.)
My sense is the Zionists haven't gotten their heads around the fact that a "Palestinian State" means the end of Palestinians having to ask Israelis for permission to travel or to do business with others.
It's means a sovereign state, not a state that Israel controls remotely.
October 29, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
When the Palestinians demonstrate that they are ready for a sovereign state, then they will have their state. This includes one of the main goals of the state - the monopolization of the means and use of force. Until that, they are not a state...they are a terrorist entity somewhat like the Taliban, except less competent.
October 29, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
By this lame-brain bit of regurgitated AIPAC hypocrisy, the Stern Gang would still be blowing up hotels and not running the country of Israel.
October 29, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
PTroub: Nudnik's response demonstrates how hard it will be for the Zionists to accept an independant Palestine.
I appreciate his pure ethnocentricism uncorrupted by the base alloy of hypocrisy.
October 29, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
MB:
You write:
"My sense is the Zionists haven't gotten their heads around the fact that a "Palestinian State" means the end of Palestinians having to ask Israelis for permission to travel or to do business with others."
I am proud to call myself a zionist and strongly believe, as I wrote above, that an appropriate resolution to the I-P conflict requires "sensible and rational borders for the descendants of both Isaac and Ishmael." I hardly think I'm the only zionist who feels this way, beginning with the leadership of J Street, the Forward writers whom I've linked to above, and many posters and silent readers of this blog. Of course, there are far too many people on both "sides" of this issue who still have not come to terms with what it will take to resolve this ongoing nightmare. I'd like to hope that J Street stays focused accordingly, and if it does I think that it has the potential to be a heckuva lot more productive than joining folks like Blumenthal and MJ in games of "nanny, nanny pants on fire" with a brilliant writer and holocaust survivor whose choice of certain friends (Madoff and Hagee) leave quite a bit to be desired. But, more importantly, I don't take issue with your point about appropriate borders for a Palestinian state (although one thing I agree about with Bernard Avishai is that ultimately the actual borders between the two sovereign states should be besides the point and incidental to a vibrant and integrated economic partnership).
October 29, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, no surprise that I agree with everything you say here, Bruce. And it's heartening to find some actual discussion apart from the usual name-calling and invective. So, I'll take a break from my vacation to respond very briefly to my old antagonist, mythbuster, who writes.
I can't argue with these aspects of sovereignty. What does appear to be an issue, however, is whether the state will have (probably severe) restrictions on its military capability. I can't imagine any Israeli government - even one governed by the far left parties like Meretz that at this point constitute a tiny fraction of the electorate - agreeing to anything other than a de-militarized state. It's just not going to happen. Not with the history. No Israeli leader would allow the formation of an armed adversary on its border. It's a major obstacle as polls show that an overwhelming majority of Palestinians would not accept a de-militarized state. Obviously, an overwhelming majority of Israelis would accept nothing less.
Personally, for what it's worth, I don't see why the Palestinian state should not be permitted a military, though only after a period proving that the two sides can co-exist peacefully. But that's just the view of this American.
October 29, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Finally some sense!
I think the last thing the Palestinians need is a military. And they will probably need UN peacekeepers for about 20 years while they build their state.
However, that is a phase. My problem with Netanyahu's formulation is that he wants the Palestinians to define their state with permanent limitations on its sovereignty. That is unacceptable.
October 29, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more thing, the Jeff Goldberg interview in the Atlantic with Jeremy Ben-Ami was something I cited to last week but, more importantly, was something that Josh Marshall linked to as well. I provide another link to that interview, and I will be happy to respond to any serious comments during tonight's Yankee game (if. and only if, the Yankees are losing big, heaven forbid):
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/10/j_streets_ben-ami_on_being_a_z.php
October 29, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
talking about "must watch" check out the daily show interview that john stewart did with barghouti and balzar on i-p
October 29, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks!
October 29, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wiesel's moral compass was badly damaged years ago already when he became a cheerleader for the chickenhawks' clueless and planless mad bungle into Iraq. It is no disrespect to his considerable past literary and humanitarian achievements to insist that he adhere to the same basic standard of decency, honesty, and fairness as any one else. We don't in fact know what he said at the this very strange party, but it probably was not the apology he owes America for his idiocy on Iraq.
October 29, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The apology is owed to the Iraqis, not to Americans.
October 29, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Wiesel should apologize to the Iraqis for advocating the removal of a brutal, totalitarian dictator and his Caligula-like sons. He should also apologize to the Iraqis for now having to vote. And he should definitely apologize to the Iraqis for them no longer living with the possibility of being picked up and "questioned" by the Mukhabarrat.
Speaking of moral compasses...your's is pointing due south.
October 29, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
America owes an apology to the Iraqis for foolish tools such as Nudnik (if that is not a redundant phrase) of unpunished scoundrels such as Rumsfeld who helped keep Saddam in power through the '80s and then trashed America's military and national security twenty years later removing him in the stupidest and most incompetent way imaginable.
The neo-con chickenhawks (and spineless Democrats who signed the blank check to them, and public figures such as Wiesel who ought to have known better) owe an apology for the damage they did TO AMERICA, in connection to what they and Saddam did to Iraq.
October 29, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Nudnik should read Tom Rick's "Fiasco." I doubt any American would be bragging about the Iraq invasion if they appreciated how much suffering our invasion and occupation has actually caused.
But then again: About 10 years ago, we had a Secretary of State who stated that the death of 500,000 Iraqi children from sanctions "was worth it."
October 29, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just the latest example of the fatally flawed premise that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.' In which, Hagee joins company across time with such ostensible Israeli allies as the Phlangists and Muhammed Dahlan. That Oren, the historian-turned-ambassador from AIPAC, would lend his official presence to this lunatic fringe event while snubbing the much larger mainstream J-Street event shows another mile marker on the road of the 'ends justify the means.' And who's ends are they really?
Of course, I really think the Ziocons are cynical to the nines about Hagee, and that they'll just use him to their own ends--just as he thinks the same thing, while he sits on the barrels of cash he has generated since he came to his 'revelation.' Speaking of cynics and cash, that's become the big problem for the Zionists; con artists like Madoff and Hagee who mouth all the correct pieties while laughing all the way to the bank. A cynic on the other side might say that Wiesel is shacking up with Hagee because he needs the money.
It's a telling sign when the Ziocons are furiously slandering fellow Jews for not toeing the party line, while simultaneously kissing up to Hagee and his ilk. Ewwwwww.
October 29, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was very pleased to find this site.I wanted to thank you for this great read!! Hulu Downloader | iPad Converter
August 17, 2010 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
"My sense is the Zionists haven't gotten their heads around the fact that a "Palestinian State" means the end of Palestinians having to ask Israelis for permission to travel or to do business with others. " Imobiliare | Dezmembrari auto
February 5, 2011 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't imagine any Israeli government - even one governed by the far left parties like Meretz that at this point constitute a tiny fraction of the electorate - agreeing to anything other than a de-militarized state. anunturi gratuite
February 5, 2011 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This article is very interesting. Thank you very much for sharing .
Best regards, Katya, CEO of facebook, fedora 12 iscsi target
March 24, 2011 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability virtualization
April 27, 2011 4:24 AM | Reply | Permalink