Posted on 10/06/2010 9:22:18 AM PDT by Qbert
Quite the few days that J Street had last week, what with all the admitting they’re foot soldiers in Soros’s anti-Israel army after lying about it for years and then trying to get ahead of the story by lying about it some more. Most of the criticism has focused on co-founder Jeremy Ben-Ami, who did not exactly fall on his sword and instead tried to hamfistedly change the subject. But it’s probably unfair to blame him for all of J Street’s failings, from rigging polls to being more anti-Israel than the Saudis to expressing fake confusion about Hamas’s intentions.
Per Eli Lake’s first story, Ben-Ami seems to have been the one who did most of the “misleading” about J Street’s fundraising, from furtively squirreling away Soros’s cash to opaquely raising 50% of the group’s 2008 money from a single foreign source.
But per Lake’s second article, when it came time to shuttle Goldstone around DC and peddle his endlessly inaccurate and venomously biased libels around the Hill, J Street delegated the task to one of the adults in the organization. It was J Street co-founder, advisory board member, and international socialite Daniel Levy “who accompanied the judge to several of the [10-12] parleys” with Congress. It was also Levy’s New America Foundation that hosted a high-caliber lunch for Goldstone with “a group of analysts and Middle East wonks.”
The Goldstone tour wasn’t the first time that Levy willingly served as a channel for de facto Hamas propaganda. He’s been a tireless advocate of pro-Hamas diplomacy, and sees the Iranian proxy as an integral part of Palestinian civil society. A few years ago Noah Pollak took him out to the woodshed for historical revisionism that seemed jarringly anti-Israel and borderline anti-Zionist.
If sometimes it seems like Levy doesn’t really think that the modern Jewish State deserves defending, it’s because he kind of doesn’t really think that the modern Jewish State deserves defending. You can be confident on that point because he said so himself – quite definitively – at last May’s Fifth Al Jazeera Forum. Levy was on a panel with Al-Quds Al-Arabi editor-in-chief Abdel Bari Atwan, NAF Strategic Program Director Steve Clemons, surreal Hamas apologist and one-stater Allister Sparks, and accused terrorist Basheer Nafi.
Mere Rhetoric has obtained a transcript of Levy’s remarks. They conclude with him asserting that it’s “natural” for Gazans to want to attack Israelis on account of the ostensibly unbearable situation in the Strip or something, and with him nonetheless urging Palestinians to hold off on their genocidal campaigns because those aren’t very strategic or disciplined.
But the most ideologically pointed part was just before those musings. Levy quite explicitly revealed that he thinks that Israel’s creation was a “an act that was wrong.” Quote unquote. For good measure he added that “there’s no reason a Palestinian should think there was justice” in Israel’s founding. Gamely, he also implied that had he been a diplomat in 1948, he would have been so overwrought at the incineration of six million Jewish souls that he would have deemed the reestablishment of Jewish sovereignty in the ancestral Jewish homeland “excused.” Generous!
I’ve put the full quote, in all of its prevaricating nuance, at the bottom. Begin reading it for the risible claims of Hamas pragmatism, and stay around for the spectacle of a “pro-Israel” activist dismissing the moral basis for Israel as misguided and historically fleeting. In the middle, don’t miss how the only flavor of Zionism he’s willing to support is a kind that exists only in his mind.
In fairness, you can’t blame him for the “natural” violence stuff too much. There aren’t a lot of places you can argumentatively go after something as blunt as “an act that was wrong.” Once you’ve embraced the anti-Israel version of Middle East history – where the revival of the Jewish State was an ethically injudicious colonialist overreaction to the Holocaust rather than a centuries-old legally-codified international movement – you can’t then forcefully insist that Jews have an ethical right to live securely in the Holy Land. Because those two things mean the opposite of each other.
No wonder J Street wants to redefine “pro-Israel” to justify their rhetorically creepy “we beat up Israelis for their own good, and it hurts us more than it hurts them” campaign. The group’s directors are beholden to major anti-Israel donors. They have political skin in anti-Israel diplomatic gambits. And their personal feelings about the Jewish State leave them no room for speaking out in defense of Israel’s ethical legitimacy, legal basis, or strategic importance. So they end up shilling for Hamas in Congress. At least that’s consistent.
Anyway, to preempt the inevitable claim that Levy was taken out of context, here’s the extended quote:
One can be a utilitarian two-stater, in other words think that the practical pragmatic way forward is two states. This is my understanding of the current Hamas position. One can be an ideological two-stater, someone who believes in exclusively the Palestinian self-determination and in Zionism; I don’t believe that it’s impossible to have a progressive Zionism. Or one can be a one-stater. But in either of those outcomes we’re going to live next door to each other or in a one state disposition. And that means wrapping one’s head around the humanity of both sides. I believe the way Jewish history was in 1948 excused – for me, it was good enough for me – an act that was wrong. I don’t expect Palestinians to think that. I have no reason – there’s no reason a Palestinian should think there was justice in the creation of Israel.
(emphasis added)
They will burn in hell along with Soros. I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you.
The creation of the U.N. was wrong.
The liberals have always been against the ideas of America as a nation, apparently thinking that but for Columbus the American Indians would still be eking out their stone age subsistence on the North American continent.
“...but for Columbus the American Indians would still be eking out their stone age subsistence on the North American continent.”
And living wihout the wheel.
Is that George Soros standing behind the NAZIS?
They’re just modern-day Kapos.
“...but for Columbus the American Indians would still be eking out their stone age subsistence on the North American continent.”
Nobody seems to realize that if North America hadn’t been colonized by Europeans, it would have been by the Chinese. Put that in your peace pipe and smoke it.
I DO NOT have a peace pipe, just a Cohiba Siglo IV (really).
Firing one up this weekend.
Daniel Levy’s mom: “The creation of Daniel Levy was a mistake”.
The list, ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
http://www.nachumlist.com/obamaisraellist.htm
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Soros is supporting a hate group and the media says...nothing.
How bout some pics of those delightful Bolsheviks kiiling people in the Worker’s Paradise?
Nobody seems to realize that if North America hadn’t been colonized by Europeans, it would have been by the Chinese. Put that in your peace pipe and smoke it.>>>>>>>>>
I tell that to people and they have no idea what I mean. North America was very underpopulated. The Chinese would have loved to get here first. Given another 500-1000 years they could have done it
The victor writed the history.
It’s said that China had ships up to 400’ long in the 14th century. Compare that to Columbus in the 15th cent. at 50’ long. Artist’s conception at link:
http://nickdupree.blogspot.com/2007/07/chinas-age-of-discovery-voyages-of.html
I read that ....Very interesting. For whatever reason the Chinese did not have the juice to discover, colonize and settle the vast new underpopulated New World
Could have been cultural reasons too. The shipbuilding was there (China) but not the aggressive adventurousness cultures of England, Portugal and Spain
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.