Do You Love Netanyahu? If Not, No US Government Job For You
Thank God for the Israeli media because no article like this would ever appear in the mainstream media here.
Ha'aretz' correspondent Natasha Muzkavaya reports that "every appointee to the American government must endure a thorough background check by the American Jewish community."
The check is designed to weed out anyone critical of the AIPAC line. That explains why our policies are so whack. If everyone in the room is an AIPAC guy, who is going to tell the President that he should endorse the Goldstone report, not criticize it? Who is going to tell him that Prime Minister Netanyahu is playing him like a violin? Who is going to tell Secretary Clinton that Netanyahu's implementation of the settlement freeze is not "unprecedented" but rather nonexistent? The answer: nobody.
Once again, the Middle East issue is unique. On Afghanistan, the President hears both sides. On Iraq, the same. On pretty much every issue there are two sides (or more) from which an administration chooses.
But not on this one. Steve Walt (yes, the Steve Walt who wrote about this phenomenon in his famous book) has more. And Andrew Sullivan.
It's a good thing Israel is always right! Otherwise, having only policymakers who believe Israel is always right could be problematic.
Sounds about right, but weren't Obama and J Street supposed to change that? Have they made no progress whatever?
December 7, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
J-street and its fellow travelers advised Obama to demand a settlement freeze, assuring him that Netanyahu would cave first on the freeze, then on settlements, then on Jerusalem.
As a result of their stunning success their advice is now limited to janitors and shoe-shine boys.
December 8, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
J-Street advised no such thing-spidie--The advise was to stick to the issue he felt important and they would try to help with doing the right thing.
AIPAC has played the guilt card long enough...it is time to move forward. No one believes BiBi anymore---the World sees the selected leaders for what they are! Failed old hawks..Note that BiBi got no special attention and only a last minute talk with Obama. Medvedev said he did not know what the 'secret' meeting was all about. No one is listening ...Not even Rahm and Axelrod can save them from their foolishness and the atrocities they visited on the Palestinians last January.
Game over...
December 8, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if that's true. Do you know it for a fact? Rosenberg, on this forum, certainly and explicitly gave that advice.
The rest of your post makes no sense. Settlement continues, especially around Jerusalem, which is what Israelis want. The Palestinian government is dysfunctional as usual, despite Fayed's truly heroic efforts. No sanctions have been imposed and, even if they are, Israelis have little reason to fear them, since they don't work well.
What I find interesting about Rosenberg's position - assuming it's at least somewhat representative of the left (and not merely his own nuttiness) - is the desire to impose sanctions on Israel while preventing their imposition on Iran. What kind of position is that?
December 8, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's an analysis by a well-known Israeli dove which appeared in a Palestinian blog.
http://ramallahonline.com/component/content/article/83-uri-avnery/3459-the-drama-and-the-farce-netanyahu-humiliates-obama
Who was responsible for Obama's failure?
And who would these advisors be? Certainly not AIPAC, and almost certainly not members of the oil lobby (this isn't the Bush administration). That leaves - guess which group? - which is now furiously trying to deny responsibility.
It's obvious, isn't it. So where do you get the information on which you base you're oh-so-certain denial?
December 8, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This makes me miss the old Woody Allen. Could you imagine the guy who directed Sleeper doing a scene where a government appointee is subjected to a "background check by the American Jewish Community"?
"Thank you for joining us. Would you like cheese on your pastrami sandwich or without?"
December 7, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"every appointee to the American government must endure a thorough background check by the American Jewish community."
The check is designed to weed out anyone critical of the AIPAC line
I'm reluctant to believe this is for real. I thought America was a democracy as a result of the War of Independence together with WW1 & WW2 in which hundreds of thousands of American, Canadians and Commonwealth soldiers and civilians died.
Yet AIPAC and American Jewish Zionists represent less than 2% of the population out of around 300 million, so what happened? I need a history lesson as apparently I'm VERY naive. I thought that congressmen/ women were elected by their constituents as representatives of and for their interests. If AIPAC has only 2% of the vote, it doesn't make sense.
Some one please give me a brief lesson on American democracy/ social justice / equality of opportunity and freedom of speech .. and political corruption .. and the point of the House of Representatives.
December 7, 2009 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lots of vocal minorities wield outsized political power here, you just need enough belief and some luck of geography. Look at how the Cuban population of Miami has managed to keep the embargo going.
December 7, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"On Afghanistan, the President hears both sides. On Iraq, the same. On pretty much every issue there are two sides (or more) from which an administration chooses."
Hum, that may be true on some issues, but those examples are poorly chosen. For Afghanistan, it seems Obama listened to McChrystal's side... then to Petraeus' side.
AIPAC is not the only powerful lobby in town.
December 7, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amazing. Rosenberg has many faults, but he does quote Haaretz correctly, using "American Jewish community" and not "American Jewish Community" as quoted by Destor23, or whoever.
Of course, Rosenberg blows journalistic accuracy continuing about "the AIPAC line", that is his invention and not of the Haaretz author.
To read the article, and not Rosenberg's inventions nor Walts, it says nothing more that American Jews keep themselves informed on the goings on in Washginton, do their homework, and communicate their views. Something wrong with that? Or are Jew forbidden from taking part in the political process.
Which brings us back to Mr. Rosenberg. I assume he doesn't think there is something wrong with Jews taking part in the political process, so I will only ask if that is OK, why he would bother to refer to the article?
December 7, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time to expel the Israeli Ambassador, recall the American Ambassador to Israel, close both embassies, terminate all foreign aid to Israel, list all who give aid to settlers as terrorists with all the incumbent legal implications, and boycott all businesses who do business with this Apartheid country.
December 7, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The title of this post is a falsehood. The linked sites indicate that some (but by no means all) Jewish groups opposed some nominees (but not necessarily all) because of perceived anti-Israeli views, but they do NOT claim that the opposition succeeded in derailing all the listed appointments. What this tells us is that members of the American electorate lobby in favor of what they believe are their own interests. It certaintly does not tell us that there is "No U.S. Government Job" for those who offend these particular groups.
I'm not surprised at Rosenberg for the misinformation, but disappointed that some commenters may have accepted it as truth without checking it out. That may have been careless in some cases, while in others it may signify an inclination to believe uncritically any report if it reinforces existing prejudices.
I'm reminded of the comment of a Bill Clinton hater during the Whitewater hearings alleging Clinton wrongdoings of an arcane nature. He said, "Whatever it is, I'm sure he did it."
December 7, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm breaking my pledge not to comment on I-P through the New Year because I need to commend you Fred for being spot-on. I do think that certain commenters must be forgiven for trusting that MJ was telling the truth about the article he cites to. Other people, like the very odd Marquis, simply has an irrational hatred about the Jewish State--he's one of the few people whom Josh Marshall actually once challenged for his obvious and irrational hatred, and at that time Marquis cried like a little baby that Josh had called him an anti-semite (and Josh had not done so to the apparent disappointment of the odd Marquis); it really was pathetic. [I've met Marquis in person so I write of him with reluctance and with knowledge that we up to now have shared friends.]
But you are correct Fred; once again MJ simply lied through his teeth about the Haaretz piece, and in doing so, and perhaps simply to garner the attention he used to have but lately no longer enjoys, MJ Rosenbrg perpetuates age-old stereotypes about the Jewish People, namely that they assert, with unmatched conspiratorial expertise, control over those who are not Jews.
MJ Rosenberg may not be a self-hating Jew as I don't even understand what the term means (although I'm sure it would delight MJ'a warped mind to no end were I to claim that he was), but for whatever reason, and to the detriment of those who would actually change American policy towards Israel, MJ Rosenberg chooses to reach back into history and be reckless with age-old stereotypes about Jews. Let me repeat--MJ Rosenberg hurts the cause of those who would like to see a sea change in American policy in the Middle East, and he does so with filth and for an extra 15 minutes of fame. I have come to recognize and to learn that nobody who matters pays attention to MJ Rosenberg, thank G-d, and
I'm sure MJ, in typical paranoid fashion, would take solace in his irrelevance by blaming AIPAC or some other agent of supernatural control. Let me make this clear folks, MJ Rosenberg speaks a very different language than J Street does. J Street is building; MJ is spewing hate.
To the extent that I can, I try to ignore MJ. And, as we see from the numbers, most people are catching on that MJ Rosenberg is not worth responding to. But I confess that it hurts me to see lies from someone that slander the Jewish People in the same manner in which they have been slandered for the millenia.
So I broke my pledge and I did MJ a favor by giving him the attention the poor soul craves. Of course maybe now MJ will get a few more comments (he gets so few these days). I can live with that. For those who matter to me I think I'll be forgiven. I know I forgive myself.
Finally, I do agree with the central premise that there is a very powerful and effective lobby in Washington that supports Israel, and many in that lobby, to the detriment of Israel, support the Jewish State whether it's right or wrong. But again, to lie as MJ does here, to deliberately misrepresent an article so as to suggest that Jews control all federal appointments, reaches back to evil stereotypes that have endured through the centuries. And anyone who chooses to ignore such history when it comes to the discussion of the so-called Jewish, ooops, I mean "Israel" Lobby, is, at best, forgetting that history is relevant.
Nice work Fred. Nice honest and courageous work.
Bruce S. Levine
New York, New York
December 8, 2009 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I apologize for the typos; I am nauseous from what I read this morning.
December 8, 2009 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are mistaken. I do not hate Israelis. I believe the nation (not its peoples) has taken advantage of the United States largely because Americans are afraid to speak out against its Apartheid policies for fear they will be called antisemitic. It its dangerous to be called antisemitic in the US, regardless of the falseness of the claim.
Israel, the nation, has committed crimes against humanity and encouraged the United States to do the same. I am ashamed to say the United States sometimes takes the advice.
Israel, the nation, is not an ally of the United States, it is way to weak to be such a thing. It is a client of the United States. The United States can walk away from the relation at any time and be stronger for the change of events.
The United States NEEDS to give up its clients. Client states are sore on the soul of the country. Israel is our gambling addiction.
Israel, too, would benefit from the shock of reality that would come with no longer being a client of the US. It would find it necessary to actually make peace with its neighbors, rather than continuing a belligerence that indicates no willingness to accept the other regional governments as equals.
December 8, 2009 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't write that you hate Israelis Marquis.
December 8, 2009 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce: You state "I do agree with the central premise that there is a very powerful and effective lobby in Washington that supports Israel, and many in that lobby, to the detriment of Israel, support the Jewish State whether it's right or wrong."
Would you go so far as to say "many in the lobby to the detriment of the United States, support the Jewish State whether it is right or wrong" and, further, that as matters stand at present, the overall influence of the lobby is detrimental to the United States, and, to use a phrase of Obama's, "makes the world a more dangerous place."
I'd be intereseted in hearing your thoughts.
December 8, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if I'd go that far, but I don't think it's wrong or some how in bad faith to take that position. I think some people with a misunderstanding of the complexities of the Middle East put too much emphasis on American support for the Isral as the reason that we are detested by so many. That said, I believe we have done a horrible job balancing our alliance with Israel and reaching out to, for example, the modern world.
But, query, why pose that question to me here, when here I am challenging a bald face lie that harkens back to the worst of how Jews have been stereotyped for centuries? Repectfully, it's as if you're giving me a litmus test for calling out what I see as a heinous and slanderous misrepresentation. Can you appreciate why I ask you that?
December 8, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
last sentence of first paragraph should have been "muslim" and not "modern".
December 8, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fred. Have you been to Israel? Do you know any Palestinians?
December 8, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://jfjfp.com/?tag=israeli-peace-movement
December 8, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Appointees go through a background check by woman's groups, by conservative Christian groups, by environmental groups, by business groups. Are American Jews not allowed the same rights?
December 7, 2009 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
B S LEVINE from NY is clearly proficient in Hasbara-speak, but his long-winded attack on MJR is nonsense. MJR has long experience of AIPAC and its methodology; he writes with authority and has many, many followers on both sides of the Atlantic.
AIPAC has undue influence over the House and, therefore, over American foreign policy. That influence is far, far greater than any other lobby group - as discussed in depth by Mearsheimer & Walt.
BS Levine's personal pledges and confessions do not belong on any serious discussion of politics. Perhaps the Enquirer would give him space for his verbal meanderings.
December 8, 2009 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Colindale/Blue Canary:
It is you and not I who uses two avatars but not his or her own name in order to get his singular point across (Israel is to be hated)--I recognize with some reluctance that avatars are necessary for the safety and security of some people, but more than one is just weird, as the kids say, AHkward. I can assure you that the audience you and I seek to reach are quite different, and I will posit that I am reaching the audience I seek to reach. I can also assure you that I am fully comfortable with the record I purposely make to show to others. I only hope that MJ Rosenberg doesn't pull another cowardly deletion of another of the lying blogposts he writes. I know of no other blogger who does that.
Now, Colindale/Blue Canary, did MJ Rosenberg honestly portray the Haaretz article he cites to? Either one of your hate-filled avatars can respond with the last word.
December 8, 2009 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the Cafe, chief, not a poli-sci lecture.
December 8, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I mean is that Bruce's personal comments and opinions are perfectly appropriate for this venue.
And If you are usuing two avatars Colin/Blue whatever, you're nothing but a troll to be banned.
December 8, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dorn:
I really am humbled. I have read your posts for several years now and I know we often disagree on the merits, and in particular on matters pertaining to the Middle East. Thank you; what you have done gives me even more hope that there is a group of contributors here that can cut through some of the garbage we are fed, respect differing opinions, and ultimately help each other reach a higher level of understanding for the greater good. Hat tip from my heart, for whatever it is worth.
Bruce
December 8, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/movers-and-shakers/
December 8, 2009 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has made a great breakthrough with his appointments Hagel and Hannah Rosenthal. I find Steven Walt's (I'm a critic) and Andrew Sullivan's (I'm an admirer) whing/qvetching without merit.
In spte of opposition--Foxman, Morton Klein, Hoenlein and others-- the appointments have been made.
I've worked with Senator Hagel on Iraq and the GI Bill. He's an open minded and courageous public official. Hannah Rosenthal is deeply steeped in the Jewish community and the efforts to block her only reveal how extreme the opposition is.
Let's recognize that Obama stood up to the extremists. That's the lesson to learn.
David Cohen, Washington DC
December 8, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama "stood up" to the same extremist Zionists who think that Rahm Emmanuel is a self hating Jew.
BFD.
December 8, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the Jewish press, and its treatment of Ms. Rosenthal with nothing but grace, and with dignity, and with utmost respect:
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/11/23/1009363/new-anti-semitism-envoy-sees-job-as-reactive-and-proactive
http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/20960/the-anti-anti-semite/
Yes, as Mr. Cohen writes above, she is quite a wonderful choice, as reflected in her treatment in, inter alia, the Jewish press, and as reflected in President Obama's selection of her (despite the fact that some extremist, right-wing Jewish people opoosed her). On the right-wingers, as Fritz Mondale said back in 1984 when I was in blessed Madison, Wisconsin (where Ms. Rosenthal has apparently also spent some time):
"Where's the beef"?
December 8, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
?
December 8, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think I'm ganging up on Rosenberg? Really? You cannot be serious. And, if you are so be it. I submit that Rosenberg lied, that he lied again, and that it is anything but ganging up on him to point it out. Are these the standards you really wish to subscribe to lally? Is your political position enhanced by defending lies and misrespresentations? I think you should step back and reflect on what your point is.
December 8, 2009 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point is that you are a hypocrite, Brucie.
I certainly don't expect you to hold yourself to the same "standards" you demand of others. That would be out of character and is completely beyond your exceptionalist ken.
December 8, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brucie? Oh my. How personal. I'm blushing. And I'm totally cool with what I've written and still don't understand how it's hypocritical to point out misrepresentations of the ugly sort presented here.
December 8, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blushing Brucie.
You signed off as "Brucie" on one of your posts.
Nice try @ eliding my point that you are engaged in behavior that you purport to "loathe".
...and of course you are perfectly "happy" with everything you write. Quelle shock. In fact, you're so prone to patting yourself on the back that I suspect you experience chronic difficulties with torn rotator cuffs and dislodged scapulae.
PS. Why do you "believe" that BC and Colindale are one and the same?
Got any "proof", counselor?
December 9, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lally,
I get a very weird feelign that you're like stalking me. Nothing better to do than to fish out my commnets to try to make me look bad? You seem to have quite a bit of time trying to take me on. It's almost creepy. No, it is creepy.
But as to hypocrisy, you're totally full of shit. If MJ Rosenberg misrepresents an article, and if I'm bothered by the fact that the misrepresentation delves into a heinous historical indictment against the Jewish people, I'm gonna call him on it. That is neither ganging up on him or being at all hypocritical about anything I have ever written. Ganging up on him? People like you spend half the time defending him and hounding people like me. And, frankly lally, if you think that's hypocritical, go right ahead. I don't really give a shit about what your avatar thinks.
Keep stalking me lally, although I do wish you'd have the courtesy to leave me alone. But whatever turns you on. And, heck, you can call me Brucie if you'd like too.
Strange obsession lally. Very weird.
December 9, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lally, gosh I even looked at the two comments I made that you stuck together. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. They are taken totally out of context. In one comment I respond to AA concerning someone who jumped all over another poster. And in another comment I thank AA for defending me when I was being jumped all over. I mean really lally. How disingenuous can you get?
You really are exhibiting very strange and scary conduct with respect to me. Is it because I use my real name? Should I be concerned? Lally, I may use my own name, but I am not engaged by the Cafe and I am not a public figure. Really, do you not have anything better to do than to stalk me? I'm really serious lally. It's creepy.
December 9, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not my goal in life to drive Bruce Levine crazy but I have apparently done so.
But it has been my goal for years to get people talking about the lobby and its influence on policymaking.
In that, I'm far from alone. Walt and Mearsheimer, and now Sullivan, Yglesias, Greenwald, Dreyfus, Ackerman, Rozen and pretty much every other more significant blogger than I do it regularly. This genie will not be put back in the bottle specially when I contemplate, with joy, that the most effective opponents of the lobby are well under 30.
I admire J Street and it is doing God's work by serving as an alternative to AIPAC no matter what it says publicly. But it is an intermediate step, a way station (a nachtasyl in Herzl's words) to a place where AIPAC is replaced with...nothing. And American Middle East policy will be made with reference only TO US interests, one of which (but only one) is Israel's security.
And, in that world, Robert Malley will not be kept out of the administration because AIPAC vetoes him, to have his rightful place filled by AIPAC's devotee Dennis Ross.
Foreign countries are entitled to lobbies, registered lobbies, nut they are not entitled to block a President from choosing whoever he chooses to serve as his adviser.
Nor are they entitled to press a President to hire only Jewish and pro-Israel activists as Middle East mediators. At Camp David in 2000, the Palestinian delegation (including Arafat) politely joined in Shabbat prayers on a Friday night with their Israeli and American counterparts, every one of whom was Jewish. Can anything be more ridiculous? Or offensive. Yes, one thing, every proposal submitted to the Palestinians by the Americans was drafted by the Israelis;some had their handwriting on it.
This is the way it was. But not for long, no matter how much the Israeli-firsters weep, wail and worry, worry, worry.
December 8, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is one thing to point out that you have lied. But unforunately MJ Rosenberg, your biggest problem is and always has been that you think in a a box, and you choose to divide the world into those who agree with you on every point and everyone else, those of us whom you label Israel Firsters or something else to suggest that each and every one of us is something other than a patriotic citizen of this country. How Glenn Beckian of you.
You are divider MJ, an ugly and hateful and unmitigated divider. And to the extent you sometimes succeed in driving me crazy, it's because I detest the fact that, for whatever reason, you choose hate over unity and you make it ever so difficult to finally build a true progressive coalition that will unite to build an effective and fresh American policy in the Middle East. And what a shame it is.
Your rambling comment above doesn't change the fact that you blatantly misrepresented an article and sought to capitalize on an ugly and age-old stereotype against the Jewish People. And the fact that you are Jewish should not and does not give you license to do that. You should be more responsible at the very least.
A shame indeed. You could do so much more with the forums that you have been provided with. But you choose division and you choose hate, and you do so at the expense of the search for common ground and truth, and ultimately at the expense of fostering peace. And yes, that drives me crazy and it breaks my heart.
December 8, 2009 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rosenberg is SO concerned with US, and only US, interests. What a patriot! Is this the same man who said, repeatedly, that he would not fight in any of our "stupid" wars (presumably leaving that dirty job to the poor and uneducated)? Certainly is. What a hypocrite! What an ass!
December 8, 2009 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder what Chas Freeman would say about MJ's post? Lies? I think not:
December 8, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dave:
You make a fair point. Let's assume that Chas Freeman was the victim of character assination and unfair treatment. His cause is not helped by the kind of misrepresentations and downright lies exhibited by MJ Rosenberg in this blogpost. It betrays the same type of conduct that Mr. Freeman was alleging in the comment you provide. And that hurts folks like Chas Freeman, whose character is unfairly attacked Don't you see that?
I will say, fwiw, that if Chas Freeman was the victim of an organized attack by right wing Jewish lobbyists in DC, it would, unfortunately not be a unique occurrence. Check out, for example, what's going on with a guy named Mark Pearce, a really good man, a solid guy, who has been nominated to serve as a member of the National Labor Relations Board. The guy can't even get a hearing before the Senate. Washington is a fucking mess, and it ain't just Jewish extremists who make it that way Dave.
Bruce
December 9, 2009 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correction. It's nominee Craig Becker, who has had a block placed on his nomination by none other than John McCain. Becker's "crime", like Pearce, is that he is a top-knotch and excellent and well-respected union attorney, and he's yet another victim of the DC dirty tricks game. In the meantime the work of the NLRB cannot get done.
December 9, 2009 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce, thank you for responding. However, as usual, I don't agree, or else I misunderstand your point. To me, you seem to be saying that there is no right-wing I-J lobby, and god forbid anybody should put a capital 'L' on it and speak about it publicly. I agree with MJ's assertion that shining a light on these actions is the way to counteract their pernicious activities, so, to me, it's a ridiculous contortion to equate a blog op-ed post with the coordinated attack on Chas Freeman, which cost him a position that he was eminently qualified for, and where he may well have helped initiate a much needed course correction in our ME policy.
I agree that Washington is screwed up, however, it's not really valid to equate somebody trying to gain a foothold in a relatively low-level government position with a senior official with a well-regarded track record that stretches almost 40 years.
You're still fighting against the Walt-Mearshimer thesis, which at this point, is like arguing against global climate change; your disagreement is simply about the degree to which it is occurring.
December 9, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously some of the commenters here are AIPAC hit men assigned to denigrate MJ and hurt his credibility. More of the Israeli dirty tricks whereby they run US Middle Eastern Policy, and exercise undue influence among congress people without backbone. This is the "conspiracy" that does exist. Thanks MJ. Keep up the good work.
December 8, 2009 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 8, 2009 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ron Kampeas, on the folly of those who resort to age-old canards against the Jewish People, such as he who lied in this blog with a default to the age-old canard, this time that the Jews control federal appointments. Kampeas, doing his homework, finds virtually no evidence whatsoever of an organized, much less effective, attack on Hannah Rosenthal:
http://jta.org/user/profile/1112
So what gives fellow "lefties"? Is it left to excuse the misrepresentations proffered by the likes of an MJ Rosenberg who seems to take glee in pissing mooks like me off? Is it not cool to take him on? Is it stifling to take it on when it stares you in the face? Bullshit I say. And tough shit too. Not in my left wing. I won't let people shit where I eat. That's not the price of admission for African Americans, Arab Americans, and like it or not, Jewish Americans, even those Jewish Americans who think MJ Rosenberg is a fraud.
Got a problem with Israel? Me too. Be tough, be candid, but try your fucking best to be honest. And don't be a pussy in the face of obvious misrepresentations, just because you think it might impact on this or that political view.
And that is all I have to say about that.
December 9, 2009 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
But you choose division and you choose hate, and you do so at the expense of the search for common ground and truth, and ultimately at the expense of fostering peace. printed bags custom printed bags
December 23, 2010 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink