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 theyre foot soldiers in Soross 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 its probably unfair to blame him for all of J Streets failings, from rigging polls to being more anti-Israel than the Saudis to expressing fake confusion about Hamass intentions.
Per Eli Lakes first story, Ben-Ami seems to have been the one who did most of the misleading about J Streets fundraising, from furtively squirreling away Soross cash to opaquely raising 50% of the groups 2008 money from a single foreign source.
But per Lakes 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 Levys New America Foundation that hosted a high-caliber lunch for Goldstone with a group of analysts and Middle East wonks.
The Goldstone tour wasnt the first time that Levy willingly served as a channel for de facto Hamas propaganda. Hes 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 doesnt really think that the modern Jewish State deserves defending, its because he kind of doesnt 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 Mays 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 Levys remarks. They conclude with him asserting that its 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 arent very strategic or disciplined.
But the most ideologically pointed part was just before those musings. Levy quite explicitly revealed that he thinks that Israels creation was a an act that was wrong. Quote unquote. For good measure he added that theres no reason a Palestinian should think there was justice in Israels 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!
Ive 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, dont miss how the only flavor of Zionism hes willing to support is a kind that exists only in his mind.
In fairness, you cant blame him for the natural violence stuff too much. There arent a lot of places you can argumentatively go after something as blunt as an act that was wrong. Once youve 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 cant 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 groups 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 Israels ethical legitimacy, legal basis, or strategic importance. So they end up shilling for Hamas in Congress. At least thats consistent.
Anyway, to preempt the inevitable claim that Levy was taken out of context, heres 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 dont believe that its impossible to have a progressive Zionism. Or one can be a one-stater. But in either of those outcomes were going to live next door to each other or in a one state disposition. And that means wrapping ones 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 dont expect Palestinians to think that. I have no reason theres 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 youd 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 hadnt 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.