[Update: Rob Jacobs correctly noted in a comment below that my original title was in error. it is not Stand With Us that is spending $150,000 to defeat I-97, but rather that amount will be spent to defeat it by those who oppose it (including, but not limited to SWU.]
Opponents of Seattle’s anti-Occupation divestment measure, I-97, announced that they plan to spend $150,000 to fight it in court and on the ballot. Though I’m no expert in local politics, this seems an extraordinary amount of money to spend for a local Seattle measure. Of this, $80-90,000 will be spent on hiring an attorney (I’m trying to identify who this is) to represent the group (presumably in court challenges) and the remainder to hire the political consultants, Gogerty Stark Marriott. Among the latter’s clients have been such conservative corporate clients as Walmart and Weyerhaeuser. They also represented AT&T in its attempts to topple net neutrality regulations under consideration in Congress.
I recently wrote an op-ed for the local Seattle Jewish newspaper, JTNews, in which I predicted that opponents of the Israel Occupation divestment inititiave, I-97, would pull out all the stops, twisting the meaning of the measure to be anti-Israel. They’ve gone one better. In a message to supporters, Stand With Us, the right-wing pro-Israel group leading the campaign, falsely characterizes the Initiative:
…(I-97)…is a Trojan horse, an anti-Israel initiative cloaked as an anti-Iraq War initiative. While proponents claim that I-97 “Divests from War,” two-thirds of the Initiative focuses on divestment from Israel. It would penalize Israel for protecting Israeli civilians from terrorist attacks and Qassam missiles. And it would penalize only Israel and not the Palestinian leadership or Hamas for shooting Qassam missiles at civilian neighborhoods or sending suicide bombers into pizzerias and shopping malls.
Of course, I-97 has nothing whatsoever to do with defending Israel, Qassam rockets or suicide attacks. I-97 is about the Occupation, period. It calls for divesting municipal pension funds from U.S. companies that profit from the Israeli Occupation. At that, only two companies have been mentioned as potential targets: Motorola and Caterpillar. So much for “penalizing Israel for protecting civilians from terror.”
When you place such a campaign in the hands of right-wing extremists like SWU, you get mendacious, apocalyptic rhetoric like this. The only question is whether the lies fan the flames of opposition to the measure or whether voters see through the histrionics and are repelled by it. My hope is for the latter to happen.
I wonder whether the Jewish federation, which is an enthusiastic participant in the opposition campaign, has signed on for such extremist rhetoric. I, for one, hope that they let the wingnuts rule the roost on this one. The more extreme the rhetoric the easier it will be to discredit them.
In a side note, Allyson Rowen Taylor, an L.A.-based pro-Israel extremist credits herself as a “founder” of Stand With Us. It’s interesting to note that she has written that former President Jimmy Carter “clarly [sic] is in cahoots with the radical Islamofacists.” She’s accused Israel’s major universities, without providing any evidence of course, of supporting faculty members who are “anti-Israel radicals…openly call[ing] for Israel to be annihilated.”
Though I don’t believe she is directly involved in the Seattle campaign, the hate-filled Rowen Taylor symbolically represents the real Stand With Us with whom the local Seattle Jewish community has thrown in its lot. Rowen Taylor is also Rachel Neuwirth’s best friend and ideological soulmate. Readers will recall that Neuwirth called a UCLA Hillel rabbi a “kapo.” Neuwirth recently filed an appeal of her loss in her libel claim against me to the California State Court of Appeals.
Locally, Stand With Us also brags that two local legislative districts considered endorsing the initiative and both voted it down. What the message neglects to say is that, according to a supporter present at one of the meetings, SWU actually packed the room with opponents who did not live in the district; and on a voice vote they drowned out the actual local residents who supported it.
I’m sorry to report that Brit Tzedek and most other liberal Jewish peace groups, oppose I-97. Since I’m a member of Brit Tzedek, I have to say that I’m most disappointed in the group’s political timidity. I think the utterly catastrophic situation which the Occupation has imposed on both the Palestinians and Israel calls for drastic measures instead of calculation and caution. I’m pleased to say that Jewish Voice for Peace supports it.
I have to say that I always mistrust measures like I-97 and its sponsors. No personal disrespect meant. Part of this is because I am more used to UK “anti-occupation” measures, and much as it pains me to say it, there often really are anti-Israel and even anti-Semitic elements behind them, just like the righties say. (Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that someone isn’t out to get you.) Also, the wording sounds rather overly broad and vague. What exactly is a “company benefiting from the occupation of Iraq?” If my company makes supplemental armor for Strykers, am I an evil war profiteer? If I run a VC fund and wish to invest in new Iraqi enterprises, or God forbid joint US-Iraqi enterprises, am I profiting from the occupation? Who judges who is profiteering and who is simply engaged in business?
I appreciate the moral position of something like I-97 (well, more in the case of Gaza/WB than in the case of Iraq), but the classical liberal in me thinks they are usually not a good idea. I don’t think it’s surprising at all that many liberal Jewish peace groups do not support it.
Richard stated :
——————————————-
Of course, I-97 has nothing whatsoever to do with defending Israel, Qassam rockets or suicide attacks. I-97 is about the Occupation, period. It calls for divesting municipal pension funds from U.S. companies that profit from the Israeli Occupation. At that, only two companies have been mentioned as potential targets: Motorola and Caterpillar. So much for “penalizing Israel for protecting civilians from terror.”
——————————–
It is important to point out that statements like this in which Richard says the proposed ballot proposition is “not anti-Israel, only anti-‘Occupation'” is purely Richard’s view alone, and does not represent more than a tiny percentage of those Jews who are say they are pro-Israel. Even the Israeli Left like MERETZ opposes moves like this one. Richard does not speak for the Israeli Defense Establishment when he states that Caterpillar tractors have “nothing to do with defense”. Motorola is a major company in Israel (I know people who work for them) and I don’t even know what he is talking about when he says that the “aid the occupation and not the defense of Israel”.
CO Founder of Standwithus. Not Founder. Jimmy Carter is in bed with the enemy.
check out my blog…
[URL removed per comment rules]
So Jimmy Carter sleeps with Bedouin women (or perhaps men). Who would’ve thunk?
Bar-Kochba,
I doubt if there is much danger of people thinking Richard speaks for the Israeli defense establishment.
As the regional director in the Northwest for StandWithUs, I was greatly amused to see Richard Silverstein’s error-ridden “Stand With Us Plans $150,000 Campaign Against I-97” story.
StandWithUs has no plans to spend $150,000 in a campaign against I-97. I wish we had that kind of money in the Northwest. We’re a grass roots volunteer driven organization here that spends very little but is inordinately effective with the very little that we do spend.
I am saddened by Richard’s use of guilt by association. I do not know Allyson Rowen Taylor, never heard her name before this, and she has had nothing to do with the broad based campaign against I-97 that formed over the past two months.
Richard’s even further attenuated guilt by association continues when he mentions Rachel Neuwirth, who also had absolutely nothing to do with the campaign here and who he brings in only by saying that she is the friend of another person who had nothing to do with the campaign here.
Richard then completely misrepresents the overwhelming defeats in for the I-97 supporters in both the 34th and 36th legislative district Democratic Party endorsement meetings. In the 34th, we did not organize anyone. In fact, we learned of the endorsement attempt the night it took place, while StandWithUs and our activists were at a completely different community meeting. We greatly appreciate the completely local effort in the 34th that resulted in a vote of 6 for endorsement and 33 against endorsement of I-97.
In the 36th district Democratic Party endorsement meeting, I believe I was the only non-resident in attendance (other than campaign workers for other candidates seeking endorsements). There were over 100 people still in attendance when the vote was taken at the end of the evening. Only about 20 voted for the initiative. Everyone else (and by that time, all the non-residents working for other candidates had left) voted no – nearly 5 to 1 against the initiative.
I-97 would penalize Israel for protecting Israeli civilians from terrorist attacks and Qassam missile — Israel won’t withdraw from the Golan Heights, from East Jerusalem, from the West Bank BECAUSE of it saw the result of its withdrawal from Gaza – Israel knows that, until the Palestinian leadership (Hamas and Fatah) can and do stop terrorist and Qassam attacks, withdrawal from the other territories would result its the Israeli civilian population suffering the same kind of attacks suffered by the civilians of Sderot.
So, interpreted as I’ve described it, the initiative would penalize Israel, bringing economic pressure on the country, because Israel refuses to put its people in direct harm’s way by vacating from land from which Qassam missiles most likely would be fired into Tel Aviv, Haifa, etc.
As for StandWithUs being an “extremist” “right wing pro-Israel organization,” I am a former legislative director to US Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, one of the most liberal U.S. Senators; I was counsel to the House Budget Committee under Leon Panetta, former Chair of the Committee and former Chief of Staff to President Clinton; I spent years in Latin America practicing Human Rights law. As former Regional Director for the ADL, I led the fight in the Jewish community in support of the LGBT Civil Rights bill that passed in 2006.
No one can call me a conservative and pass the laugh test. No one can call our regional leadership “right wingers” and pass the laugh test.
It would be one thing if Richard argued with facts. It’s too bad that he has so few and has to resort to misinformation and distortion to try to make his case. One wonders what nachas he gets out of knowingly misrepresenting the facts and portraying Israel in such a false bad light.
Richard,
This is not a reply to your blog. It’s an invite to you. You should call and check your facts. You and I may vehemently disagree on the issues, but facts are facts and your piece was so full of errors and misrepresentations that you lose all credibility.
You should also call to find out what StandWithUs Northwest has been doing here – and what we’ve reached out to do with Brit Tzedek, the IPF, etc.
Please feel free to contact me – email me and let’s actually talk.
I am watching to see if you have intellectual honesty and fairness to put my full reply up on the blog.
L’Shalom,
Rob Jacobs
Funny thing today. Someone from Caterpillar Inc. was on my blog –logging in from Peoria, Illinois, no less. Why? Because I mentioned Caterpillar in a post on the “Jerusalem tragedy” of two weeks ago, and Caterpillar’s PR flacks just wanted to make sure that they weren’t getting any bad press. Which they were, of course.
Yep, Caterpillar has its PR department working over-time these days. Alongside Stand With Us…. On my recent trip to Tel Aviv, I had the pleasure of seeing Stand With Us activists protest at a forum where Mearsheimer and Walt were speaking. Yep, I travelled halfway around the world, and guess who was blocking the entrance to the Bet Sokolov Press Club where the event was taking place? I could have just stayed in the States if I wanted to hear Stand With Us activists “ensure” that “Israel’s side of the story is told in communities, campuses, libraries, the media and churches.” You can read my sad story here: http://www.alternet.org/story/89117/
It is so encouraging that Seattle is doing this, or at least that a measure like this is on the ballot for citizens to vote on. I think a local or regional political statement and stand of this nature could really make a difference. And if this sort of measure can be replicated in liberal/progressive communities around America, it just might (?!) help instigate a political sea change in U.S. foreign policy. It gives one hope. Although it should be noted that enacting any fundamental change in our foreign policy is a massively daunting task and challenge. You have pretty much the whole power-establishment and its exhaustive resources against you. What do you do. Anyhow, good luck Seattle!
@Rob Jacobs: My original title was indeed wrong. Though $150K WILL be spent in an attempt to defeat I-97 and undoubtedly SWU will contribute toward this.
I-97 opponents don’t really need SWU’s cash though. Seattle has plenty of deep pocket Jews who feel threatened when someone says “boo” and “Israel” in the same breath. They’ll cough up $150K in a heartbeat esp. when they’re suckered by the lies coming out of Stand With Us about what the Initiative says.
So let’s see, Allyson Rowen Taylor claims (in this comment thread no less) that she “co-founded” Stand With Us. Rob Jacobs works for Stand With Us. He’d have us believe he never heard of the co-founder of the organization he works for? Now, either Allyson is lying or Rob is just plain ignorant about history he ought to know about. Which is it Rob? And is it not relevant to anyone making a judgement about SWU that one of the founders is a hate-filled nut?
I never claimed Allyson was running Rob’s campaign. I only used her as an example of what Stand With Us’ true colors are. Rob Jacobs is a long-time Jewish communal professional. He has a reputation of being a decent guy. But that doesn’t excuse the fact that he’s gotten himself mixed up with one of the most extremist pro-Israel groups in the American Jewish community. SWU is prob ecstatic that they’ve gained the cover of someone with as much credibility as he has. It will allow their hate-filled rhetoric & lies to penetrate even deeper into the communal consciousness than they otherwise would.
Unfortunately for Rob, he’s peddling more lies here:
No, it wouldn’t. Again it is directed only at American companies that profit fr. building settlements. I challenge Rob to quote from the text of the intiative to prove that his claim is remotely close to the truth. He can’t. You’ll notice that he merely characterizes what the Initiative says in his own words without providing any proof. This will be the quality of the campaign against I-97 & Rob should be ashamed.
I think what’s interesting (& quite lame) in Rob’s argument is the notion that the Occupation somehow protects Israelis from terror attack. It’s quite clear to almost any reasonable observer that quite the opposite is the case. This is almost the same argument advanced by Bush & the neocons to justify the Iraq invasion. They said doing so would help end Islamic terror. What has been the result? Every Islamic terrorist nutjob in the world worth his salt has made aliyah to Iraq to join in the jihad against America.
Another lame argument from the pro-Israel lexicon. The Gaza withdrawal was not a negotiated peace agreement bet. Israel & the Palestinians. It was a fait accompli, unilateral arrangement done w/o consultation w. the Palestinian leadership. Sharon did it w/o giving any thought to whether it would work or how it would work. And guess what–it didn’t work. Surprise, surprise.
And here’s another lie fr. the Initiative’s opponents:
As I wrote, it would NOT penalize Israel and bring no economic pressure whatsoever on it. It would pressure American companies. Period. Any impact on Israel would be totally indirect and symbolic.
Rob seems to be confused here. He’s saying that because he is a reputable, upstanding fellow that the group he works for can’t be a bunch of raving pro-Israel crazies. Nothing could be further from the truth. Actually, Rob’s professional pedigree only points out how sad it is that he’s thrown in his lot with the Allyson Rowen Taylors of the Jewish world.
Another lesson for you, Rob. Just because you worked for a liberal senator and support gay rights says nothing whatsoever about yr politics on the I-P conflict. Perfectly liberal Jews on every issue have odious views when it comes to the I-P conflict. There’s a bifurcation that you and other Israel lobby members have created that enables you to have two completely contradictory sets of political values.
I’ll leave it to my readers to judge whether the inflamed, mendacious rhetoric quoted from Stand With Us in my post above is “extremist” or not. And I’ve got news for Rob–if he approved circulation of these arguments, then he’s betrayed some of the sterling communal work he’s done in the past.
Ah, playing the “anti-Israel” card. I was wondering when that shoe was going to drop. I’ve got to hand it to Rob though. He played the card subtly. But play it he did. Notice how my criticism of Stand With Us has been transformed into “portraying Israel in a bad light.”
For the 1,000 time, Rob and all you other pro-Israel right-wingers out there: criticism of the Occupation is not “portraying Israel in a bad light.” It is actually doing the highest service to Israel. Your reflexive support for every disastrous Israeli Occupation policy is what puts Israel in the worst light.
You’ll notice in Rob’s comment that it is all the Palestinian’s fault for the Occupation. All they need to do is stop terror and the Occupation would somehow magically end. Talk about naivete, Rob. Couldn’t you find at least a smidge of responsibility on Israel’s part for the nasty predicament it finds itself in? I didn’t think so.
And Rob, this is needless grandstanding & shows you don’t have a clue about me or this blog. There are thousands of comments from right-wing readers in this blog saying precisely what you have said above. Do you think there’s some reason I’d be afraid to publish your comment?
@bar_kochba132:
Which is it? My view alone? Or the view of other Jews as well?
I do so enjoy when Bar Kochba conveys his wisdom to us w/o benefit of any empirical evidence other than his own word. How do you know what other Jews feel about divestment? Have you done a study? And I’ve got news for you–Meretz & I diverge on a number of issues. They supported the Lebanon war, I didn’t. Guess what, if you talk to them now they’d give you the impression they opposed it all along. Funny how people’s views of controversial issues change over time.
Maybe Bar Kochba can explain to us how using a Caterpillar tractor in contravention of international law to destroy Palestinian homes, oftentimes for purely punitive purposes, constitutes an act of defense. That is why Caterpillar is on the hot seat.
No surprise that right-wingers always refer to the Gaza withdrawal as if poor gullible Sharon had wanted to do the thankless Palestinians a favour, give peace a chance etc., but I’m a little disappointed that progressives, apparently including Richard, have, by and large, swallowed that propaganda canard, too. Sharon himself outlined his reasons in a speech to the Knesset on April 22, 2004:
“It is important to understand that:
# … whoever wants to prevent Israel from being flooded with refugees;
# whoever wishes to preserve the large Israeli settlement blocs under our control forever;
# whoever wants to ensure that as long as the Palestinians do not fight against terror there will be no political pressure on Israel;
# whoever wishes wide American support for Israel’s right to defend itself;
# whoever wishes to see American support for our war against terror;
# whoever wants Israel to initiate – and not be dragged into initiatives, will lead and not be led;
# whoever wants all of the aforementioned – must support the Disengagement Plan.”
(entire speech here: http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/historicalspeeches/263.shtml)
While he doesn’t say so explicitly, his stoking fear of “Israel being flooded with refugees” in this context may hint at that he had finally begun to listen to the likes of Prof. Arnon Sofer and their relentless “demographic threat” fear- and hatemongering. After all, “disengaging” from Gaza, in Sharon’s mind anyway, removed at once 1.5 million Palestinians from the equation. Ehud Olmert definitely thinks along these lines.
Needless to say, it’s a delusion. A prisoner doesn’t cease to be imprisoned when there’s no warden in his cell. And Israel never gave up complete control of all of Gaza’s borders, including the border with Egypt and the sea cost, as well as making incursions at will – that was explicitly part of the plan. There’s also the issue of Israeli disregard, indeed active undermining of the fact that Gaza and the West Bank and their population are a unit, similar to Alaska and Hawaii being integral parts of the USA, despite the lack of territorial continuity. That at least is totally undisputed between all Palestinian factions.
As far as the “disengagement” from Gaza goes, an article in the Washington Post on April 24 (titled “Israelis Claim Secret Agreement With U.S.”) explained that Bush gave Israel the green light to accelerate settlement construction after a withdrawal from Gaza. Not only was there no real disengagement, but there were plans to continue expanding into the West Bank, and even since Annapolis there has been a massive surge in settlement construction.
In January Stephen J. Hadley told reporters that Bush’s “secret agreement” was aimed at helping Sharon win domestic approval for the Gaza withdrawal.”
Richard,
The reason I don’t know who Allyson Rowen Taylor is is because she was one of 50 or more people who came to the initial meeting forming StandWithUs in L.A. Those 50 included leading rabbis, representatives of the ADL, AJC, Federation, JCRC, and many others. Being at one of the early community meetings does not constitute being a “co-founder.” Ms. Taylor does not represent our organization at all. She is not on any board or committee. She worked for us briefly two years ago for six weeks and it did not work out. She runs a blog and is very outspoken. There are many people who attended our first meeting and helped us get off the ground in 2001 but they do not speak on our behalf! We are non-partisan and our philosophy can basically be understood from our literature, period.
Again, rather than vilify me and StandWithUs Northwest, why not talk? As local supporters of Brit Tzedek, the IPF, and even Jewish Voice for Peace can attest, I have always advocated communication and education – “listening to” rather than “talking at.”
Rob Jacobs
While it is certainly possible to be anti-Israel AND anti-Semitic, it is impossible to be pro-Israel and pro-Semitic.
The friends of Israel are the enemies of the Jewish people as they have dragged the glorious history of the Jews through the garbage dump, hugely intensified global animosity toward the Jewish people and turned the holocaust into a ghastly, cynical pretext for brutalizing the Palestinians and stealing yet more of their homeland.
Jews of character are proudly and resolutely anti-Israel. The younger generation of Jews today feels less and less affinity for this archaic, gangster state plopped down in the Mid East desert and are turning their backs on it. Only psychotics consider moving there. This in part accounts for the pro-israel hysteria exhibited by the old guard. The desperation is palpable. Small wonder Israel’s anniversary celebrations generated about as much enthusiasm as a Bob Hope rerun.
The place is rotting from within. So they have to invent threats to their existential well being, such as Iran or Hezbollah. Their own racism and backwardness is what is doing them in, but they can’t recognize that.
Stand With Us? Thanks, I’ll pass.
ps…as no doubt some here are aware, SWU were co-conspirators with Alan Filthowitz in the vicious campaign of slander and lies against Norman Finkelstein’s tenure bid. They forwarded DePaul a fabricated patchwork of nonsense and even had the audacity to forge signatures of Finkelstein SUPPORTERS, adding these to their defamatory petition. More here:
http://randompottins.blogspot.com/2007/04/swindle-with-use-anti-finkelstein-fraud.html
Perhaps Ron Jacobs wants to have an open “chat’ about SWU’s McCarthyite efforts to silence dissent or the libelous rantings of their vermin-in-chief, Roz Rothstein, (a textbook psychotic who plainly belongs in an asylum).
Speaking of which, here’s what Allyson Rowen Taylor had to say after attending a lecture by Norman Finkelstein:
“I understood that day,standing alone what it felt like to be a Jew in pre-war Germany. I understood how fearful the hostages in Iran must have felt when the US Embassy was taken over. I felt the pain of the Jews, who were expelled from their homes in the Middle East, and the suffering they must have felt under Sharia laws which eventually drove them from their lives and their history.”
http://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=1254
Describing this charismatic loon, Ron Jacobs refers to her “outspokenness.” Here on earth, we call it “having one foot in the madhouse.”
@Rob Jacobs:
Ah, then Rowen Taylor is exaggerating her connection with the group. She clearly has a sort of psychological need to do validate her own importance. I’ll note that in future when I write about SWU.
As for communication, I’m communicating with you. My critique of your campaign statements is clear communication. I’ll watch closely to see if you manage to pay attention to my communication and start telling the truth about the Initiative in yr rebuttals. If you do, I’ll be happy to note this. If you don’t, I’ll note that as well. If you have a specific reason you want to talk I’m sure you know how to reach me & I’d consider doing so. I have no need for mtg. just for the sake of mtg. or talking just for the sake of talking in order to be able to say that we’re all one big happy Jewish family. I don’t relish the idea of sitting down with people so willing to twist the truth for the sake of their narrow definition of Israel’s interests.
@ Fiddler:
You couldn’t possibly think that if you’d bothered to read my reply to Rob Jacobs in which I excoriate the Gaza withdrawal. So what are you talking about?
I would like to qualify the response I sent regarding Allyson Rowen Taylor. Ms. Taylor worked for StandWithUs approximately one year ago (not two years ago) and left because she decided she could not work full-time. Ms. Taylor worked very hard along with Esther Renzer, Jerry Rothstein, Roz Rothstein, Marty and Susan Jannol, and many others who founded this organization seven years ago. Her son made aliyah and is in the Israel defense forces and she vigorously supports Israel and should be respected as a person who loves Israel and works hard on Israel’s behalf.
Both at speaking engagements and on her blog, she tells of far too may incidents of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism on campus. She has become expert on the far too many challenges that confront and frustrate students. She has been a guest speaker for StandWithUs regarding this issue and people of all political persuasions, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, have heard and taken her presentation very seriously.
StandWithUs has supporters from across the political spectrum. The criteria for participation in StandWithUs is strong support for Israel. We have conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, Jews and non-Jews all of whom believe strongly in Israel’s right to exist as a safe and secure Jewish homeland at peace with its neighbors.
The only official voices for StandWithUs, however, are are the Executive Director, Roz Rothstein, the President, Esther Renzer, and Executive Board of Directors. You can see our positions in our literature. For example, go to http://www.standwithus.org/ONLINE_BOOKLETS/?BID=1 and click on Israel 101. That is an example of what officially represents StandWithUs.
L’Shalom,
Rob Jacobs
Rob Jacobs..*
I see.
So now, instead of distancing yourself from the mind-addled ms. taylor, you applaud her fine contribution to your organization? Glad we cleared that up.
Thanks also for the heartwarming mission statement of your “non-partisan” Judeo-supremacist gaggle of cave inhabitants.
On to specifics. Here is an article by your director:
http://www.standwithus.com/news_post.asp?NPI=841
The question is whether Roz Rothstein is her real name. If so, it is the ONLY factual item in this preposterous hatchet job.
Finkelstein is a “holocaust revisionist”
…evidence? zero.
Finkelstein’s efforts seek to “minimize the horrors of the holocaust.”
Evidence, zero.
‘Palestinians fled their homes not in response to Israeli massacres, forced expulsions and intimidations, but due to encouragement from arab leaders’
..a long-ago debunked columny maintained by the political equivalent of the flat earth society..
and the same goes for the entire top to bottom assemblage of clumsy, idiotic lies.
Nor have you addressed SWU’s phony petition to DePaul and on and on and on.
Why don’t you just admit it—Stand With Us hasn’t a leg to stand on.
@Rob Jacobs:
I wish you would make up your mind. First she claims she’s a co-founder which I duly acknowledge. Then you claim she wasn’t, you’ve never heard of her & I’m practically making her up. Now, you’re embracing her again. Frankly, I’m confused but pleased. A further indication of the principles & agenda of Stand With Us is that its Northwest director “respects” a nutcase like Allyson Rowen Taylor who writes e-mails to Jewish peace activists she doesn’t even know asking why they’re helping murder Israelis (that story was covered by The Forward). Frankly, I think Stand With Us, Allyson Rowen Taylor and Rob Jacobs were made for each other.
Yesterday I wrote that either Rowen Taylor was lying about her role in SWU or that you were ignorant about something I would’ve expected you to know. It appears you’re now acknowledging the latter was the case.
And Rob, answer me another question…who wrote that obviously canned puffery about Allyson Rowen Taylor? Did she or Roz Rothstein or someone else? It sure couldn’t have been you because until yesterday you hadn’t even heard of her. Are you taking dictation?
So you have political supporters across the political spectrum. Would you mind pointing me to a single SWU donor or leader who belongs to Peace Now, Meretz, the New Israel Fund, Brit Tzedek or is a liberal Democrat. By the way, I “believe strongly in Israel’s right to exist as a safe and secure Jewish homeland at peace with its neighbors.” That would make me eligible to join too. But I wouldn’t touch SWU with a ten foot pole.
Richard, in that reply to Rob Jacobs you wrote
Obviously an occupier can retreat from a patch of occupied territory without formal consent of the occupied – final status issues are a completely different kettle of giraffes. That it was done unilaterally, and more important, the question “did it work?” have to be assessed in the context of Sharon’s objectives, not what you or I might have wanted the withdrawal to accomplish. If the objective had been peace, or even peace & quiet, it didn’t work (nor did the way it was done make sense), however in Sharon’s context it did. Thus to say “it didn’t work” implies Sharon had motives he didn’t have, but are constantly trumpeted by the “pro-Israel” crowd.
Rob: Both my wife and another friend have told me that my comments in this thread have been too harsh on you. In acknowledgement of that I want to reaffirm what I said above, which is that I have heard of you over many years and from what I have heard you seem to be a decent and honorable person. You are doing yr job in the best way you see fit and in accord with your own understanding of what is best for Israel. I want you to know that I credit that & find it honorable.
However, I can’t say the same for the group you work for. Nor can I say the same for the rhetoric your chapter and the anti-97 campaign has adopted. I said it was full of lies & I still maintain this. I would like to be able to say at some future point yr opposition to the Inititiave is based on its substance & I urge you to clean up SWU’s act in this regard.
I wanted to make clear that I do not believe that you are a liar nor should anything written above be construed that way.
That being said, I hope that you will restrain anyone from your organization from using any terms to characterize my views about I-97 that claim they are anti-Israel. I regard such claims as a calumny.
I’m a first-time poster to this site, and I would like to bring the topic of conversation back to the relative merits of I-97. I-97 chooses to lump the US occupation in Iraq together with that of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The two aren’t related and it raises questions in my mind as to why this was done. I also wonder why no other occupations/conflicts/oppressions were included. There are many horrific situations in the world that simply weren’t addressed.
As a progressive voter and liberal Jew, I am very concerned with the tendency of many seemingly mainstream progressives to label Israel as an oppressor and paint the Palestinians as the victims in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While I certainly don’t support all Israeli policies and actions, I do believe Israel has the right to exist, supported by the 1947 UN mandate that established side-by-side Israeli and Arab states in the British Mandate of Palestine. I also believe that Israel had cause defend itself in the many wars in which they were attacked by or from within neighboring Arab states, and that their military occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, Sinai and Golan were warranted militarily at the time. I also believe that the continued occupation has been disastrous for both Israel and the Palestinians, and it should be ended in a peace deal so that the Palestinian Arabs can obtain the autonomous state they deserve, and that Jews and Arabs can live in peace in the region.
But portraying this as a one-sided problem with Israel being the evil oppressor and the Palestinians being the helpless victims is simply not accurate. Although the Israeli public has been deeply divided, Israel has made many steps toward peace. As part of the 1979 peace treaty with Egypt, Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula, dismantling Israeli settlements there and in some cases forcibly removing the Israeli settlers. In 1993, Israel and the PLO signed the Oslo Accords which called for the creation of the Palestinian Authority and for the eventual Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza. In 1994, Israel signed a peace treaty with Jordan. At the 2000 Camp David Summit, Israel offered the Palestinians statehood that met many but not all of the Palestinian demands (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit). The talks broke down and were almost immediately followed by the 2nd Palestinian Intifada (uprising) which continues to the present day. This uprising has included a very large number of suicide bomber and rocket attacks focusing heavily on Israeli civilian targets and has resulted in years of ongoing conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Intifada for details). I certainly don’t claim that the Israeli response was perfect or without fault, but I certainly would not absolve the Palestinians of substantial blame for the ongoing conflict and their own resulting casualties as well as economic and political woes. To make matters worse, the Palestinians voted the terrorist group Hamas into power in the last elections. Hamas is an organization whose charter calls from the destruction of the state of Israel (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas). How is Israel to respond? If they give up control of the occupied territories without a peace deal, their national security will certainly be put at great risk.
While the specifics of I-97 may or may not put direct economic pressure on Israel, I would argue that they certainly put political pressure on Israel, mainly by way of the American political process. Most American Jews support Israel’s right to exist, and I am fearful that the American progressive movement’s continued hostility toward Israel and sympathy toward Palestinians will drive more and more progressive or centrist American Jews to vote Republican in order to support Israel.
Instead of attempting to divest from Israel, we should pursue a more even-handed approach to the two-sided Israeli-Palestinian conflict and we should attempt to elect a president (like Barak Obama) who would take an active role in brokering a meaningful peace agreement.
@Keith:
Excuse me? Maybe they’re not related in yr mind & the mind of Stand With Us. But yr mind isn’t the mind of all the rest of us.
You’re only the 100th commenter who’s argued a pro-Israel hasbara position trying to bolster their bona fides by making this claim. I’m sorry but you shall be known by yr views & by not how you self-describe yr political views. So far, your views are neither progressive nor liberal when it comes to the issue of Israel, the Occupation or divestment.
How precisely is this position “progressive” or “liberal?” Israel’s occupation was illegal then & its illegal now. It provided no benefit to Israel then & provides none now.
Yes, yes, that’s all well & good. I believe in motherhood & apple pie too. But how do we get there–that’s the problem. And you provide no answer & that’s precisely the problem w. the wishy washy views of so-called liberals like you. You want a good outcome but you don’t know how to get there. In fact, you’re not prepared to do any heavy lifting to get there, nor do you think Israel needs to do any. Which leaves you in a deep sand dune somewhere in the Sinai w/o a compass.
Gee d’ya think? Here again is the problem of the so-called liberal. They know Israel behaved badly, but can never acknowledge how badly. And Israeli certainly doesn’t share anywhere near half the blame for the mayhem.
Ah yes but once again the “liberal” Jew has a problem. For a Palestinian group to be “legitimate” it must look like the Democratic, Republican or Labor party. Anything else is illegitimate. The only problem is that you’ll have to make peace with Palestinians & not with Republicans. And Palestinians see Hamas as a legitimate political entity no matter what you think of them. Besides, if we rendered treif every ex-terrorist group then Likud would be considered “terrorist” since many of its founding fathers were such.
More sophistry that puts the cart before the horse. Israel can have a peace deal any time it wants one. But it must do precisely what you’re acknowledging Israel currently doesn’t want to do–“give up control of the Territories” to get one.
Did I hear you right when you claimed you were a progressive? Yet the only words you’ve said about progressives have been critical. And not just critical, but blatantly false. Progressives (at least the ones I know & respect) are not hostile to Israel (another error often made by pro-Israeli nationalists of which you certainly can’t be one–right?), rather they are hostile to ISRAELI POLICY. You seem not to understand this critical distinction.
Obviously, the “peace process” is going nowhere because it was painstakingly engineered to go nowhere (other than to further dispossess, demonize and brutalize Palestinian people).
The solution is simple.
1) President Obama needs to present the Israelis with a peace agreement based on the international consensus: a Palestinian state in the whole of the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capitol.
2) He has to show the Israelis the blank space where their signature goes and explain that they have 72 hours to sign it, after which, the US will impose a naval blockade on Israel and starve them into submission, while transferring all resources currently earmarked for Israel to the Palestinians, including jets, helicopters and d9 bulldozers.
That’ll bring em around in a hurry.
Believe me.
@rykart: I was w. you until the part about imposing a naval blockade on Israel & sending the Palestinians armaments. If it’s not a good idea to do this against Iran why is it a better idea to do it against Israel? Maybe you said this at least partly in jest. I hope so.
@Richard Silverstein
The only hostility I see here is toward anyone who disagrees with your views. I had hoped this might be a place for reasoned dialogue, but I see that isn’t the case. I won’t bother posting here again just to give you a target to shoot at.
You argued against I-97 and I rebutted yr arguments. I can only think that “reasoned dialogue” for you means finding a place where everyone, or almost everyone agrees w. you.
There is too much violence & bloodshed in the Middle East for me to have a lot of patience for muddled thinking. People are dying every day because of the Occupation while you seem to be reading tea leaves to decide how to make things better. Desperate times require bold thinking and action–not timidity & vacillation. Assigning blame to the Palestinians for the conflict does nothing to advance a solution. That’s all I’m interested in. Not blame.
It’s wrong to threaten Iran because they haven’t invaded anyone, are not occupying anyone, are not engaged in racist ethnic cleansing and are not a belligerent, nuclear threat to the region. Israel on the other hand, satisfies all these conditions and without military threat there is zero possibility of them ending their murderous recalcitrance.
People like keith plea for “even-handedness” in dealing with the israelis and Palestinians. On this point, i’m in total agreement. We should supply both sides equally with military hardware, including nukes to achieve a just balance of power, or we should deny these weapons to both sides in the conflict, insisting on a nuclear-free zone in the Mid East (as El Baradie and other sane people recommend) and ceasing all weapons sales to israel.
Further, we should respond to Israel’s refusal to renounce violence the same way we have dealt with the people of Gaza. Israel should be subjected to severe sanctions that cause society-wide disease,starvation, terror and death.
That would be even-handed.
The rest is just platitudes.
Richard, I came here to give a fair hearing to your side of the I-97 debate, as I had only recently heard about it from your opponents. Your vicious, contemptuous way of dealing with people on this thread who disagreed with you, particularly Keith, convinces me that the other side was right. If you treat people trying to sort out the truth that way, I cannot trust you to be fair to Israel either. So, congratulations, you have convinced another Washington voter to vote — and perhaps organize — against your initiative.
Your approach is not surprising, considering the way you drafted I-97. If you were trying to get to a fair peace, you would not try to punish only one side in a war that both sides have prolonged. I don’t know and don’t much care what your motives are; what matters is that initiatives like yours on a large scale will force Israel to make unilateral concessions. I don’t like Israel’s settlement policy either, but I will not cripple only my own side in a war to satisfy your self-righteousness.
@MannyJ: Oh please. You came here with no opinions about I-97 & yr mind was totally open to either pt of view, right? Come off it. The reason you heard about I-97 from “my opponents” is that that’s where you get yr information from & clearly you agreed w. them before you came here. So don’t posture to me about yr alleged “sitting on the fence” on the issue till I pushed you off. You were against I-97 when you came here & you left being against it.
I didn’t draft I-97 & it isn’t “my initiative” as you erroneously claim. But don’t let me spoil yr ignorance.