Today in Geneva, the UN Human Rights Council finally endorsed the Goldstone Report, after an earlier Keystone Cops deliberation failed to do so. The panel investigated war crimes during the Gaza war earlier this year. Oddly though, the Council refused to include in its endorsement any reference to possible crimes of the Palestinians during that conflict, singling out only Israel for fault. Such one-sidedness provided Israel with further ammunition to claim the Council (and by extension, the Report) is one-sided and prejudiced against it. That caused Richard Goldstone to criticize the Council.
The endorsement sets several processes in motion. First, it directs both Israel and Hamas pursue a serious investigation of the incidents portrayed in the investigation. If they do not, the Council has called for referrals to either the Security Council or International Criminal Court. Presumably, the U.S. would veto consideration of the Report by the Council. I presume though that it could not prevent the ICC from taking up the matter if the latter was referred to it and it chose to do so. Goldstone has also suggested that individual countries which are signatories of the ICC treaty could also pursue cases against individuals for their culpability for actions raised in the Report.
It is hard to imagine a hard-right Israeli government (or for Hamas for that matter) undertaking a competent investigation even under such pressure. But if the Obama administration and EU join in pressuring for this, who knows what could happen. What seems clear is that if Israel refuses to investigate, that some international body will do so. That is an outcome over which Israel will have little control. This further elevates the jeopardy for IDF senior officers who could be nabbed during international travel in any number of countries which might take up the case. This makes it lately that at some point, Israel may have its own Pinochet incident to deal with.
And once the ice is broken by one case, it will be that much easier to mount others and then the floodgates are likely to open. Israel has desperately tried to staunch the flow by placing fingers in the dam, with foreign ministry lawyers preparing briefs for this eventuality. But my judgment is that it is only a matter of time, unless a peace agreement comes first, before Israelis (and presumably Palestinians as well) will be sitting before the bar of justice. There should be no impunity, as there has been till now, for either side in this matter.
I continue to be amused, in a dark sort of way, by the Israeli claim that Goldstone is “one-sided.” There would have been one solution for that–Israel cooperating with the investigation. If Israel wanted the world to hear its perspective it should have cooperated. By not doing so, it has lost the right to the one-sided claim (unless it wishes to be laughed out of the box in making it).
J Street supports the thoughtful and nuanced approach to Iran sanctions legislation articulated yesterday by Chairman Howard Berman.
We agree that it is a vital interest of the United States, Israel and the entire Middle East to ensure that Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons.
Further, we agree with the Chairman’s stated policy preferences for achieving that objective.
J Street’s first choice – as it is for President Obama and Chairman Berman- is to resolve the nuclear issue through diplomatic means. We too strongly support the Obama Administration’s efforts to engage Iran and hope for promising follow-through to the first round of talks in Geneva on October 1.
However, should engagement not produce the desired results, we too believe that the United States should seek hard-hitting multilateral sanctions through the United Nations Security Council. If that course of action proves impossible, then the U.S. should work to build the broadest possible international coalition to back such steps.
The imposition of unilateral sanctions, without UN approval or the support of allies, should be, as the Chairman himself says, a last resort.
J Street supports the Chairman’s intention to mark up the bill on October 28th and to give the President further time to pursue our preferred options.
I take issue with J Street’s claim that sanctioning Iran will have any impact whatsoever on the country. As Roger Cohen said last night on Charlie Rose, Iran has had years to figure out ways of getting around sanctions. Stopping the flow of refined petroleum into Iran not only will not harm Iran, it won’t work. If we honor a sanctions regime, our allies Russia and China will not and Iran will get everything it needs, thus defeating the purpose of the legislation and making us look foolish. In fact, Cohen noted that the only party in Iran which benefits from sanctions are the Revolutionary Guards who control the smuggling routes that bring embargoes products into the country. So if you want to support the hardline regime, sanctions are the best way to do so.
It should also be noted that sanctions are a path endorsed by the Israeli government as a first step toward a military attack (when they don’t work). Yesterday, Israel’s deputy prime minister, Dan Meridor, noted Israel’s fondest wish would be regime change in Iran. So the Berman approach, while not intentional, could easily lead down a slippery slope toward the use of force.
I’m frankly shocked that J Street might be asking its supporters to lobby on behalf of an Iran sanctions bill on October 28th. If you were planning to participate in the lobbying day on the Hill I hope you’ll make known to J Street that you won’t cooperate with this part of its agenda. There are many useful issues to discuss with lawmakers when you meet with them. Among those, supporting Obama administration policy on Israel and the settlements and on diplomatic engagement with Iran. I suggest sticking to these issues and not roaming far afield into territory best left to Aipac (which also brought its members to Capitol Hill to lobby for Iranian sanctions during its national conference).
Clearly, under tremendous fire from the Israel lobby, J Street is eager to stake out safe pro-Israel territory so it can lay claim to the center of the political spectrum instead of the far left, with which the right-wing wishes to associate it. But we should be careful in such tactical approach not to fall into the bad habits of our political opponents like Aipac, which also support sanctions. We are different than they are. When we agree with Aipac it’s great to note that, but this shouldn’t be one of those rare times.
I note that Americans for Peace Now has taken a more principled position and opposes the bill. As J Street grows in strength and prepares to consolidate with Brit Tzedek while Israel Policy Forum faces severe financial problems, the divergence between J Street and APN proves why there should not be only one Jewish peace group in this country. If J Street can’t manage to take a progressive position on a particular issue we need a group like APN which can.
The following appeared in today’s JTNews, the newspaper of the Seattle Jewish community. It was accompanied by an excellent news report by Leyna Crow on the controversy surrounding the Seattle federation co-sponsored conference on the alleged Iranian nuclear threat. To support the progressive Iran-Israel conference on December 16th, please make a donation here to cover our expenses:
The Jewish federation is hosting a community conference, Understanding the Iranian Threat, on October 21st. The federation website notes it:
…Will provide a look at Iran’s history and political landscape; an in-depth analysis of the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran; its strategic threat to Israel, the United States and the world; and, an understanding of how we can prevent it.
While the panel speakers (from Aipac, the Jerusalem Post and Israeli government) are qualified to represent the views of the Israeli government, Aipac and StandWithUs, the sponsors, they are not qualified to discuss “Iran’s history and political landscape” since they likely have never visited Iran, do not speak Farsi, and have no academic expertise in this field.
This event will present a partisan hawkish view of the Iranian crisis. Expenses for this event will be paid by Aipac and SWU, hardline pro-Israel advocacy groups. Speakers will advocate “crippling sanctions” (Bibi Netanyahu’s term) and failing them, a possible military attack on Iran. Katz, in a report in the Post said that such an Israeli military attack on Iran could cause the current hardline government to fall. In fact, almost every serious Iran analyst believes that a military attack on Iran will unite the nation behind the hardline clerics and doom the reformist movement. The leader of the opposition, Mir-Hussein Moussavi, has publicly warned that further sanctions will hurt his movement.
We as Jews should think about the long-term impact of U.S. and Israeli actions. If we really wish a more democratic Iran open to foregoing nuclear weapons, then a pragmatic approach is the only way to go. As tempting as confronting Iran’s Ahmadinejads is, we should think about the impact of threats and harsh rhetoric on political reality. Iran’s current hardline leadership is an unsavory lot. But a policy of confrontation will not attain the goals that we set for eliminating Iran’s nuclear threat.
The federation conference claims to represent the consensus views of the local Jewish community. But the 2009 American Jewish Committee national survey finds that about one-third of Jews oppose an attack on Iran. This minority realist strain in Jewish opinion will NOT (as of the day I write this) be represented by any panelist at the event.
While JTNews originally refused to publish this statement claiming it is unnecessary because the event will not be partisan. I disagreed and planned to pay for an ad to make views known that should have been readily published. But I’m pleased to say that the newspaper’s editor finally agreed to publish this as an op ed and recognized the need to present a wider perspective within the pages of the paper.
The Israeli foreign ministry, Aipac and StandWithUs should not control this debate within the Jewish community. For that reason, a coalition of local community groups including some in the Jewish community will host a conference which will present the alternative views that should have been offered on October 21st.
On December 16th at Town Hall, Keith Weissman, former director of Aipac’s Iran desk, Prof. Ian Lustick of the University of Pennsylvania’s department of politica science, and Trita Parsi, director of the National Iranian American Council will present a pragmatic approach to the Iranian crisis which embraces diplomatic engagement and eschews force. Unlike the federation event, each of these speakers has academic and direct personal experience of Iran along with deep experience of Israel and its interests. I invite Seattle’s Jewish community to hear a point of view endorsed by one-third of our fellow Jews.
I watched Dan Meridor tonight on Charlie Rose and it was quite instructive. Meridor is the smooth, compassionate conservative face of the Israeli right. Unlike Bibi or Avigdor or even Ariel, Meridor seems a decent, reasonable person, someone with whom even a Palestinian might be able to come to terms. I was impressed in a limited sort of way as I’ve grown accustomed to seeing the Israeli right of bankrupt of ideas or reasonableness. Meridor is not of that ilk.
Nevertheless, what Meridor, who is the intelligence minister, said about Iran was eye-opening. First, Meridor displayed none of that erstwhile reasonableness when he spoke of that nation. There was no sense of compromise possible. He made clear that America must “win” the battle against Iran and that Iran must “lose.” When you use such terms in such a delicate political environment you send an unmistakable signal both to the Iranians and the U.S. public. You are not in favor of compromise. You don’t care what Iran wants because you’re not prepared to give it to them no matter what. In fact, I fear that perhaps you’re prepared for war.
I regret that I haven’t yet found the video or transcript for the interview so that I can quote it. So I’ll do my best to convey my impression of it. Meridor did his best Richard Nixon imitation when he spoke of the prospect of an Iran with nuclear weapons. He predicted that it would radicalize the entire Middle East, empower Hezbollah, Hamas, and even Al Qaeda, and encourage every major Arab nation to begin a nuclear program of its own. It was an Arab version of the old domino effect from the Vietnam war era, except in this case it was far worse because he was predicting a Muslim bomb that could endanger not just Israel, but the entire west. You all, who are of a certain age, will remember how well the domino theory held up.
Charlie Rose asked Meridor a fairly nuanced question about what we can offer the Iranians to make them willing to compromise on their nuclear program. Instead of responding constructively, Meridor chose to view the question in a typically Israeli way: how can we put the screws to Iran to make them give up their nuclear ambitions.
Finally, Meridor in almost an aside said: “Of course we would prefer regime change in Iran…” In the context of the conversation, Meridor was saying that while Israel’s ultimate desire would be for an end, even by force, to the clerical regime, this was a wish rather than a firm conviction. But I thought it was instructive that the most pragmatic minister of the Likud government was candidly and publicly using the very pointed term “regime change.” If someone like Meridor can speak openly of this, imagine what the less delicate figures in the governing coalition like Lieberman and even Netanyahu are planning.
Roger Cohen followed Meridor and offered his assessment that an Israeli attack on Iran didn’t seem likely. I hope to God he’s right. Every time I read or hear Roger Cohen speak about Iran or the Middle East, I think to myself how clear, articulate and reasonable his views are on these terribly complex issues: “My God, this is the guy who should be the keynote speaker for the December Israel-Iran conference I’m planning.” So far, it appears unlikely I can secure his participation. But I won’t stop trying.
Like Lazarus rising from the dead, the Goldstone Report has been given another lease on life by the UN Human Rights Council, thanks to the shame endured by Mahmoud Abbas when he withdrew support for it at the last Council meeting. Abbas was stung severely by the backlash from Hamas and other Palestinian groups. This new effort is a result and may go some way toward saving face for Abbas.
The N.Y. Times reports that the UN high commissioner for human rights is also throwing his support behind the report. This should help to nudge the process forward. The Council will vote on a resolution that will urge Israel and Hamas to perform a serious investigation of the crimes committed during the Gaza war by both sides. If either side fails to do so then the Council can return to recommend further action.
Netanyahu has threatened an end to the peace process if the PA doesn’t withdraw Goldstone. And possibly some Palestinian telecom entrepreneurs may be out $700 million due to a cell phone license which Israel is holding hostage.
I was also delighted to note that the U.S. diplomat who derided the Goldstone Report when it was last considered in Geneva was replaced by a different State Department representative who was positively sedate by comparison:
Douglas M. Griffiths, the American delegate at the meeting on Thursday, reiterated that the United States did not believe that the report was a matter for Security Council consideration and encouraged Israel to carry out its own investigations.
He said it was important to “be mindful of the larger context of ongoing efforts to restart permanent status negotiations that would lead to the creation of a Palestinian state,” The Associated Press reported.
I’m presuming that there will be no last minute jawboning sessions with the American consul who last time managed to pressure Abbas into dropping Goldstone. Once burned, twice shy.
Haaretz reports that Bibi Netanyahu is desperately seeking help from any source he can to stymie the Report. But all his efforts appear destined to fail, unlike the last time. Ban Ki Moon gave him 15 minutes and then told him he could do nothing to intervene against the position of UNHCR. There was a rather uncomfortable 30 minute exchange with Gordon Brown in which the Israeli PM vainly attempting to persuaded Britain to vote “No” on the Report.
Last week, Bibi looked like a Jewish Houdini, able to break out of every “trap” set for him by his political enemies in Washington or Geneva. This week, not so much. Besides the resusitation of Goldstone, Turkey has taken its pound of flesh by allowing the cancellation of a military exercise because Israel was to be involved. Considering the tight level of coordination between the Israeli and Turkish military in the 1990s, this has to be a blow. Turkey was the only Muslim country in the region to have such close relations. Now, it’s a thing of the past.
It proves that a week can be an eternity when it comes to the Middle East. One day you’re on top of the world and the next you’re sitting in a dust heap. That’s why you have to try to keep things in perspective and never lose hope completely no matter how bleak things appear.
I was disappointed that the Times reporter who wrote this story inserted a piece of blatant hasbara that is offered by Israel and its Gaza massacre apologists:
Israel says about 400 Gazans die of natural causes every month, possibly accounting for the discrepancy in the numbers.
The reporter of course does not mention that every single Gazan death has been documented and only those war-related have been counted. This is nothing but pure, blatant, and offensive propaganda. And it’s deeply offensive. Israel killed 1,400 Palestinians of whom approximately 1,100 were civilians. Of these 300 were children. These are all facts documented by the Goldstone Report and other human rights documentation.
The Republican Party has gone from controlling the presidency and both houses of Congress to trolling through the cesspools of hate and bigotry. I’m guessing they may be a minority party for many years to come if they continue with the types of bizarre attacks they’ve dreamed up in the past few days.
In the first attack, the Republican National Committee tweeted about a doctored video in which Adolph Hitler praises Nancy Pelosi for her efforts on behalf of health care reform. The video was featured by a far-right site, Moonbattery and retweeted by the RNC. Not only were Democrats royally pissed, Jewish groups were none to happy either. This was the best the Republicans could muster by way of apology or explanation:
NRCC spokesman John Randall says they have pulled down the Tweet and offered a mea culpa:”We saw the video this morning and thought, like other parodies, that it was funny,” Randall just told me. “In 20-20 hindsight, we realized it was in poor taste and pulled it down… I don’t want anyone to think we’re comparing Democrats to Nazis and to Hitler.”
Republicans comparing Democrats to Nazis? Heaven forfend. Why would such a thought even cross anyone’s mind? I’m waiting for Abe Foxman’s denunciation of the utter inanity of this RNC gem. My guess is we might have to wait a long time. Abe is quick on the trigger when liberals or Democrats err. But when it’s conservatives abusing the Holocaust? Not so much.
Jeff Siddiqui sends me a remarkable story about four Republican Congressmembers who, with great fanfare and in their best Joe McCarthy imitation, announced to their colleagues they would make “public a national security threat on Capitol Hill.” Was it an al Qaeda sleeper cell in DC? Not quite. Apparently, someone dug up a Council on American-Islamic Relations memo which summarized their national program, including efforts to recruit young Muslims to work as interns and staffers on the Hill. Here’s the smoking gun proving Muslim perfidy:
We will impact local Congressional districts with each member influencing at least two legislators through strong grassroots responses. We will focus on influencing Congressmen with responsibility for policy that directly impacts the American Muslim community. For example, Congressmen on the judiciary, intelligence and homeland security committees. We will develop national initiatives such as lobby day and placing Muslim interns in Congressional offices.
This is something, by the way, that Aipac does with great success. Not only does it help place young Jews in such positions, members of Congress are often eager to have them. This nexus helps cement bonds between Aipac and Congress and vastly aids in their lobbying efforts. So let’s ask a simple question: why when Aipac does something is it as American as apple pie, but when CAIR does it it’s a national security threat?
An added shocker to this story is that one of the four Republicans, Sue Myrick (NC), has written the forward to a new book by Dave Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America. When I first read Gaubatz’s name it immediately rang a bell. He’s the “investigator” who “infiltrated” mosques in the D.C. area claiming to have uncovered militant Islamist cells which threaten America’s welfare. He perpetrated this outrage together with another shady Jewish anti-jihadist, David Yerushalmi (ne Beychok), who I’ve written about extensively here. Together they run an outfit called SANE Works for US, which claims (along with Daniel Pipes and other militant Islamophobes) that American Muslims are orchestrating a sharia state for America. Here’s one particular Yerushalmi proclamation:
WHEREAS Islam requires all Muslims to actively and passively support the replacement of America’s constitutional republic with a political system based upon Shari’a.
Whereas, adherence to Islam as a Muslim is prima facie evidence of an act in support of the overthrow of the US Government through the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the US Constitution and the imposition of Shari’a on the American People.
HEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED THAT: It shall be a felony punishable by 20 years in prison to knowingly act in furtherance of, or to support the, adherence to Shari’a.
The Congress of the United States of America shall declare the US at war with the Muslim Nation.
Further, they argue that this justifies holding American Muslims in concentration camps as a threat to national security. Interestingly, the Sane Works site has gone from being public and accessible to members-only. One wonders what Yerushalmi and Graubatz have to hide. I’d say they’re trying to erase their tracks and any public record of their racism, not just against Muslims, but all “non-white” groups (except Jews, of course).
Really, this is with whom the Republican Islamophobes have gotten themselves into bed. And I say for shame. What do you have to say about that, Abe Foxman? Oh, that’s right, you’re only concerned about violations of the Jewish civil rights. Muslims and Armenians, not so much.
Apparently, the Israeli embassy has moved slightly off its position rejecting an invitation from J Street to the ambassador to attend the group’s national conference later this month. Nathan Guttman reports in The Forward that “Jewish groups” have exerted great pressure on Michael Oren not to attend the event allegedly because J Street has “attacked” them. Of course, this is totally untrue and J Street’s opponents never present any evidence of specific individuals associated with the organization doing or saying anything in the way of attacking another Jewish group. Besides, it’s quite laughable for these groups to be so sullen towards the progressive Jewish lobby by claiming it doesn’t “play well with others.” In truth, it is the Israel lobby itself that feels its turf encroached on by the new kid on the block. It is they who don’t like the competition and want to shut the new guy out. It’s classic commercial behavior. Reminds me, in fact, of a N.Y. Times story of how NYC food vendors go out of their way to sabotage the competition when it attempts to encroach on their traditional selling locations.
I have learned through a reliable source that the lobbying against J Street is coming from none other than Aipac. It should surprise no one that this is the case. Josh Block, if you’re reading this, call me to deny this and I’ll be happy to print your denial. But I think most of the rest of us know different. This surreptitious behavior follows the Aipac M.O. They want to wound their perceived enemies but refuse to leave their fingerprints on the weapon.
[UPDATE: Josh Block must use Google Alert because I received an e mail from him like clockwork. It was not only a denial it was a very convincing, strenuously demonstrative denial:
What you write is an absolute, flat out lie. It can only be based in your or someone else's fantasy, or perhaps paranoia.
If you care at all about accuracy or choosing fact over fiction, you will take it down or remove any reference to AIPAC.
Aipac's denial is duly noted.]
Guttman quotes the embassy spokesperson relaying the Israeli government’s slightly more nuanced position toward the conference:
“We decided to move ahead in a measured and cautious way,” the spokesman said, adding that the embassy has yet to make a final decision on whether Oren will speak at the upcoming J Street conference.
One can only hope that petulance will not vanquish common sense on this matter. Oren and his boss, Bibi, don’t have to like J Street. But they have to accord them a minimal level of respect unless they want to brand themselves as ideological extremists before the entire American Jewish community. Jeremy Ben Ami of J Street is playing this very well having extended a respectful personal invitation to Oren both by letter and in the pages of the rightist Jerusalem Post. The ball’s in Oren’s court. I hope he doesn’t muff it. Letting Howard Kohr determine the Israeli government’s position toward J Street is preposterous. I hope it won’t happen.
Eric Alterman has an excellent op ed in today’s Times. The money quote is this:
Commentary’s Noah Pollak called J Street contemptible, dishonest and anti-Israel; James Kirchick of The New Republic called it the Surrender Lobby; Michael Goldfarb of The Weekly Standard said it was obsequious to terrorists and hostile to Israel. Perhaps, but it is at least equally plausible to view the intemperance of their language as evidence of panic. The days of right-ruled American Jewish debate appear to be numbered, and with good reason.
…So the paradox is that while American Jews remain committed liberals — they voted overwhelming for Barack Obama…— they fund and support a neoconservative-dominated lobby when it comes to the Middle East.
Jerry Haber and I will be hosting a progressive blogger session at the J Street conference on Monday, October 26th at 12:30PM. If you’d like to hear me, Jerry, Phil Weiss, Kung Fu Jew, Matt Duss, Helena Cobban, Ray Hanania and Laila el-Haddad talk on the issues facing Israel-Palestine bloggers, come by and join us. Our event is NOT officially sponsored by J Street nor is anything said by the bloggers endorsed by it. We are all independent.
The right-wing hasbarasphere is reporting that J Street has invited Israeli ambassador, Michael Oren to speak at the upcoming national conference in Washington, DC. and that Israel’s chief representative in this country has refused. Not only will he not appear, but the foreign ministry has released a finger-wagging statement aimed at taking the group down a notch or two.
Oren’s rejection is extraordinary. Usually Israeli ambassadors practically troll for speaking invitations before Jewish groups. An appearance by the Israeli prime minister and ambassador is de rigueur at the annual Aipac national conference. Oren’s is the ultimate diss-kiss-off.
You remember way back when Bibi appointed Oren, the pro-Israel right trumpeted it as a brilliant move to appoint a Zionist “moderate” with impeccable academic credentials who could talk to Obama and to Jews across the political spectrum. I didn’t buy it then. And it looks like Oren’s bosses in Tel Aviv have dispensed with this fiction. Now, fangs are bared. J Street is an ally of the Obama administration and as such is the “enemy.” The only problem with this scenario is that it presumes that American Jews will buy the notion that a Jewish group allied with a sitting president is an enemy of Israel BECAUSE it supports his policies. This is a bit extreme even for those American Jews with almost a Pavlovian response to the notion of supporting Israel come what may.
[J Street] has been reaching out to the embassy and invited Ambassador Michael Oren to speak at its first annual conference in late October. Despite early indications the embassy was looking to engage the group, Oren has yet to meet with executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami or agree to participate in the conference.
Instead, the embassy has “communicated to J Street its views on the peace process and on the best way to ensure Israel’s security,” according to embassy spokesman Yoni Peled.
The message, Peled said, is that “while recognizing the need for a free and open debate on these issues, it is important to stress concern over certain policies that could impair Israel’s interests.”
This will certainly not hurt J Street. If anything, it will point to the extremism of the current government, which refuses to recognize an American Jewish group with whom 100,000 Jews have affiliated. Israel likes to make a pretence of representing all of world Jewry. By turning down J Street, it stands exposed before the world as the ultimate partisan. And there are at least 100,000 Jews who will not fall into lockstep with the Netanyahu government’s dictum that the group is anti-Israel.
There is an unintentionally astonishing passage in the Post article which notes that J Street actually has the temerity to agree with U.S. policies when they contradict those of the Israeli government. Imagine, J Street actually has the guts to stand up to the settler government and follow a line endorsed by U.S. Jews. If you draw this out to its logical conclusion, it means that the Israel lobby groups who oppose J Street’s views on issues like Iran sanctions and the settlement freeze actually oppose U.S. policy. They have chosen Israel’s interests over America’s as defined by the sitting president. This in turn gives the lie to the lobby’s claim that Israel’s and the U.S.’ interests are one and the same. Clearly, they are not. But someone has told neither Malcolm Hoenlein nor Tchaikovsky the news :
J Street has taken several positions at odds with the Israeli government in recent months, including arguing against the immediate imposition of additional sanctions on Iran even as Israel pushes for greater action, and backing US President Barack Obama’s call for a complete settlement freeze in the face of Israeli opposition.
The case of the disappearing tweet: Solomonia's announcement of the launch of 'J Street Jive/J Street Monitor'
The smears against J Street are rising to a fever pitch. The latest entry is an anonymous blog, J Street Jive, written by the pseudonymous Parrhesia. With the help of some readers and online research, it appears that Mr. P. hasn’t done a good job of covering his tracks. J Street Jive began life as J Street Monitor. There is only one reference to J Street Monitor online and it is a tweet by Martin Solomon, author of the hasbara blog, Solomonia, announcing the new site’s launch. Either Solomon was announcing the launch of his own site or of a site run by a close ally. [UPDATE: I've asked Solomon and Stavis twice to confirm or deny their involvement. They chose not to reply directly. But they did reply indirectly and guiltily. You'll never believe what's happened! Martin Solomon has disappeared one of his own tweets. Sorry, Martin but we've anticipated those shenanigans and saved a screenshot of it so that you couldn't rewrite the history of your own surreptitious involvement in this site. And by taking down the tweet Solomon only reinforces the impression of his having a hand in this despicable blog venture. So it appears that this week the Republican National Committee has been embarrassed into deep sixing a tweet which praised a parody of a Hitler biopic in which der Fuhrer praises Nancy Pelosi. That puts Solomon in good company.]
Unfortunately for Parrhesia, in J Street Jive he attacks a particular person as an enemy of Israel. In my own exchange with the victim (let’s call him/her ‘V.’), the very specific details cited by Parrhesia in his post allowed V. to identify the post author as former Boston bookstore owner gone-bust, Hillel Stavis. Stavis happens to be a co-author of guess which blog? You guessed it, Solomonia. So we’ve very probably narrowed Parrhesia down to either Solomon, Stavis or some combination.
I put my money on Stavis, who’s led a rather checkered career as an enforcer for Boston’s David Project. I’m featuring here a video of Stavis stalking a Jewish Voice for Peace protest. At the end of the video, Stavis threatens:
If you get too close to me I’ll put my fist through your fuckin’ mouth.
Ooh, Hillel, not nice. Apparently, our Hillel has forgotten the dictum of his Talmudic namesake, “that which you hate, don’t do to others.”
I also tracked down this rather bizarre story in which Stavis hoaxed a Boston reporter by claiming to be a “Phil Davis” complaining about the International Solidarity Movement. After the story aired on radio, listeners called in to report the informant was none other than Stavis. Needless to say, the reporter wasn’t terribly happy.
And as any good attorney will tell you, my next question is: “If you lied then, Hillel, how do we know when you’re telling the truth? And what are you concealing through your anonymity at this site?”
The above paragraph answers the question: why someone would go to the trouble of creating an anonymous smear site. The guy is clearly an obsessive with simmering hostility brewing just beneath the surface of a borderline personality. In my experience, only the sleaziest, most paranoid Jewish far-right extremists like the author of Masada2000 go to such trouble to protect their identity. Anonymity serves as a cloak allowing the author to speak in the most aberrant, anti-social terms. This is true more of M2K than J Street Jive. But lies thrive in anonymity. Truth suffers in darkness. And the putative Solomon-Stavis site thrives in such a cesspool.
Another of the Jewish neocons writing for what Dan Siedarski so aptly calls Tabloid, er Tablet, Michael Weiss, comes up with yet another rightist spin on the MFA’s attack on J Street:
There’s little love lost between the Netanyahu government and J Street, but by refusing to even engage with the organization, Israel is more or less delegitimizing it as a foreign ally of the Jewish state—an embarrassment that’s going to be hard to combat in J Street’s U.S. public-relations work. Imagine a pro-American group in, say, Egypt being told that the State Department won’t meet with its representatives because it puts American interests at risk.
It never crossed Michael’s mind that the group might not want to be an agent of Israeli influence (cf. “foreign ally of the Jewish state”). Not to mention he doesn’t understand that the current government of Israel isn’t ISRAEL. It is the government of Israel and there are many legitimate perspectives on what Israel’s interests should be and what U.S. interests are, that diverge from those of Israel’s far-right ruling coalition. Since, hasbaroids, representing American Jewish interests is not the same as representing Israel’s, J Street, thank God, is in no imminent danger–least of all from the far Jewish right.
So with enemies like Stavis and Solomon, J Street, as I wrote in a post yesterday, is golden.
.jpg){kind=small}
mini.jpg)
