Web Letters | The Nation

Web Letter

It is good to hear that Zionists may be starting to rethink the idea that Israel is God's gift to Jews. All the early premiers of Israel were terrorists under American law; most of the current ones have been criminals of one type or another by Israel law. As to the argument that Israel is a nation, it is only a nation because it practiced genocide against the people who lived in Israel but who were not Jews. Its policy was "move or die." Israel exists only because it bought Congress. Congress took American tax dollars and gave Israel billions in aid and arms. Finally, Israel has never been a friend of the US. Israel killed American sailors in 1967 without a thought, as they knew the bought Congress would never object. If Jews actually want to have Israel exist, they need to figure out how to end the war with the Arabs. The Jews started the war, they can end it. The Zionist problem is that if they did, Israel would no longer be a religious state.

Web Letter

I was intrigued by the reference to Ali Abunimah and his book One Country...

The "two-state solution" has such a stranglehold on the discussion of Israeli-Palestinian relations, and support for that concept seems to be a litmus test for progressives, though it is not at all clear that, after all the efforts and years going into developing it, the "two-state solution" is any kind of solution at all. At best, it might provide a relatively stable truce from which parties can build mutual trust and work towards a real solution.

The Nation takes such maximalist positions on domestic issues; why can't it look past the face of current discussion toward a more far-sighted approach? I would love to see a more extended discussion of the topic--such as I have seen in Tikkun, for example--in your publication.

Web Letter

If any nation is physically assaulted by terrorists from one of its surrounding neighbors, it has every right to defend itself. What this article fails to mention is that these terrorists in the Gaza surround themselves with civilian shields. Under such circumstances, the terrorists are not protected by the Geneva Convention, nor is Israel morally lapse in pursuing them.

It should be noted that the West Bank, which is currently ruled by Fatah, is a different story. The IMF is forecasting a 7 percent economic growth rate for 2009. Its soldiers are restoring order, and Israeli checkpoints have been sharply reduced. Why can't Hamas do the same? The answer is that they hate Israel more than they respect themselves.

Political progressives tend to always side with the downtrodden, irrespective of circumstances. Jewish progressives, J Street included, are no different, and no surprise.

Web Letter

I can appreciate that people on the left want to hold Israel to a reasonable standard with respect to disproportionate use of force. I can further appreciate that Israel, because it feels itself to be under siege, has indeed developed a kind of siege mentality, and that what comes with a siege mentality is often a willingness to overlook common standards about the disproportionate use of force. Israel ought to be held accountable for the disproportionate use of force, like any other country.

But this article is one of many articles on this subject that I routinely tune out. You want to know why?

Because nowhere in the article do the identified "American Jews" who are "increasingly critical of Israel" state unambiguously that they differ from other critics of Israel in that they actually believe in the concept of human rights.

If you want someone like me to tune back in, all you need is a paragraph saying, "Of course the UN Human Rights Commission is a ludicrous grouping of major world offenders against the concept of human rights, and whatever they have to say about Israel is going to be biased by their hostile worldview--but here's some things that are true about Israel's behavior in Lebanon, the Gaza war, etc., despite the fact that Israel's opponents are not even remotely credible defenders of human rights."

It might help if you also dropped in a couple lines about how "Hamas wants to bring back the Caliphate and treat Jews in the Middle East as dhimmis rather than equal citizens."

Failing that, I've got my hand on the tuning dial.

Web Letter

The end of the article left me troubled about the statement "the Jews need a state," because it sounds just like AIPAC rhetoric. What kind of a "state" does J Street dream of? A current state like that of Israel, which maintains apartheid and continues to ethnically cleanse itself of the Palestinian population?

The one thing that always gets overlooked when there is a discourse about the conflict is the mantra of Zionism that started this entire conflict. No one ever touches up on the racist and hateful ideologies of Zionism and how it applies to the current problems.

I know for a fact that one of the reasons many Jews are shifting sides is because they have learned what Zionism is really about and how it started in the Social Darwinistic cesspool with the other hateful ideologies of the last century. They are realizing that Zionism is completely counter to the Jewish religion. They are realizing that the concept is no different from the ideologies that put their ancestors in concentration camps. They have also realized that Jews have always had a home in Palestine, living in peace among Christians and Muslims.

The discourse needs to circle around to the topic Zionism and the evils it entails. The ideology is taking on new fervor in Israel and is becoming a danger to everyone in the region. Its extremism is what fuels other extremist groups and puts our security at risk.

If the hateful and racist concept of Aionism is abolished, it may give a chance for a real peace--the kind of peace Palestine experienced for nearly 1,000 years among Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Web Letter

Until fairly recently, AIPAC enjoyed an enviable stranglehold on Israel- Palestine discourse. Whenever any criticism was raised toward the murderous, thieving psychopaths of Israel, the lobby went into attack mode, invariably branding the messengers as seething anti-Semites, "self-hating Jews" or both... (never mind the transparent absurdity of such claims).

Recently however, there have been too many holes in the dike for the AIPAC rottweilers to successfully plug. Suddenly, it wasn't just Norman Finkelstein they had to worry about but more and more Jews all over the world, decrying Israel's racism and barbarity in alarmingly candid terms.

One day, Tony Judt writes in The New York Review of Books that Israel is an anachronism. Another day, Sir Gerald Kauffman, veteran MP in Britain's Parliament, compares the Israelis to the Nazis, as Israel's own newspaper Ha'aretz daily reinforces the validity of these claims, with one shocking Israeli war crimes story after another. Among civilized beings, Israel is understood as a totally indefensible and stomach-turning phenomenon.

Enter J Street, an arm of AIPAC designed to domesticate Jewish outrage at Israeli behavior. The trouble is, not one Jewish voice for Palestinian freedom and dignity will get anywhere near this clown-act of an organization, whose Orwellian motto "Pro-Israel, pro-peace" ought to tell you all you need to know about this outfit.

It is indeed a shame that Philip Weiss and Adam Horowitz, whose vitally important website Mondoweiss has done such a spectacular job of countering pro-Israel propaganda with outstanding reporting and commentary, should be taken in by this threadbare hoax.

Web Letter

Gaza was "the worst public relations disaster in Israel's history"?

Dropping the banned white phosphorous on civilians isn't bad PR.

Shooting pregnant Palestinian mothers in the stomach and then wearing T-shirts depicting the same isn't bad PR.

Shelling Gaza schools isn't bad PR.

Bombing Gaza water treatment plants isn't bad PR.

Machine-gunning women and children carrying a white flag isn't bad PR.

It's murder, pure and simple.

Israel needs to be held accountable in an international court, since they have shown time and again they cannot investigate themselves.

Israel has crossed over into a dangerous state of religious fundamentalism that is guiding her to disaster, and all of that Zionist-created distraction about Iran won't hide that fact.

Web Letter

The American Conservative is less optimistic about J Street than The Nation magazine. Any differences between J Street and AIPAC are purely cosmetic. See "Is J Sreet Changing Course?" by Philip Giraldi.

Web Letter

It must have been an unenviable challenge for the Israeli foreign ministry to try to discredit the report of the eminent South African jurist, Judge Goldstone, who has an impeccable record in the field of human and civil rights, both at home and abroad. The first insuperable problem was that he is not only a recognized authority on international human rights legislation and convention but he is Jewish! So the standard allegation of anti-Semitism was impossible. They could not attack his professional record, which was impeccable. So what action could be taken in damage limitation?

The matter has suddenly become urgent. If the world fully accepts the report, then Israel is branded a human rights violator and a perpetrator of war crimes. The international community has been shocked at the allegations of gratuitous killing of hundreds of innocent children and over a hundred women in three weeks of unchecked violence, together with the destruction of Gaza's infrastructure, including "houses, factories, wells, schools, hospitals, police stations and other public buildings."

The report alleges "an overall and continuing policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population, and a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed at the civilian population." That, the report states, "could lead a competent court to find that the crime of persecution, a crime against humanity, has been commited."

The Israeli Government is in deep trouble as the allegations become more widely known, because there are few who now believe its denials and fewer still, its continuing propaganda. And there is a palpable sense of shock as the evidence unfolds as to what transpired in those three weeks of state-sponsored killing and destruction, under the pretext of self-defense.