Was it legal for Israel to kill Palestinians in Gaza?
Was it moral?
J-Street is not the root of the problem. The root of the problem is Zionism.
However, J-Street is not going to change anything. It's just an organization that liberal Jewish Zionists can support so they can feel like they are doing something without doing enough to achieve anything useful.
Palestinian human rights don't count as much as the insatiable need to make Israelis (and Jewish Zionists) to feel psychologically secure.
And Israel and Jewish Zionists have been indoctrinating themselves for decades with an ideology that makes them feel not secure. This ideology causes Israel to mistreat Palestinians. And when the Palestinians respond the Israelis and Jewish Zionists see the Palestinian response as proving the ideology the Jews have been feeding themselves.
While this morning's air strikes by Israeli Defense Forces in Gaza can be understood and even justified in the wake of recent rocket attacks, we believe that real friends of Israel recognize that escalating ...
Yeah, I'll bet that statement made AIPAC and the Israeli gov't tremble.</snark>
A political fundraiser once told me that the most successful direct mail appeals reflect the fears and enemies of the potential donors.
Jewish organizations that shamelessly use the conflict between Israel and Palestinians are more effective at fundraising.
This puts pressure on Jewish organizations to do more fear-based fundraising and to further demonize Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims.
J-Street is not going to change the status quo. What did J-Street say about Israel bombing Gaza? That Israel's attack was legal and justified. J-Street may want peace, but it doesn't have the balls to stand against the rest of the Israel lobby. It's worried it will lose it's financial support.
Zionism relies heavily on fear mongering to make its case. The underlying case for Zionism is that Gentiles are so inclined to hate Jews (to the point of genocide) that Jews need to take a chunk of land and turn it into a Jewish state that will be a guarantor of Jewish safety.
If that's the underlying ideology of Israel, why is it surprising that Israelis embrace fear and hatred of non-Jews?
Let me know when mainstream Jewish organizations and temples stand up to the Israel lobby.
Right now mainstream Jewish organizations and temples participate in circulating stories that reflect negatively on Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims. They participate in the game of demanding Israel's critics prove they aren't anti-semites. And they give money to politicians who refuse to criticize Israel.
It may be a small clique of Right Wing nutjobs that finance Likud, but on the key policies (invading Lebanon and slaughtering Palestinians in Gaza come to mind) the so-called Left of Zionism has not effectively opposed Israel's violations of international law and violations of human rights.
So, from the Palestinian perspective the intellectual debate within the Zionist movement is pretty fucking irrelevant. When it comes to oppressing and killing Palestinians there's no meaningful split in Zionism.
I don't see a two-state solution that's viable absent significant coercion from the outside.
1. Continue the status quo. Israel gradually annexes the land while inflicting significant human rights abuses. Israel becomes a pariah state, but survives as a pariah state.
The United States leads the international community in imposing a two-state solution.
There is a one-state solution that is based on democracy and human rights.
Israel ceases to exist as a Jewish state and most Israeli Jews emigrate to the United States. Some sort of Palestinian dominated state is created which nominally respects Jewish rights, but subtly (and not so subtly) pressures Jews to leave, basically using the same techniques Israel uses to get Palestinians out of Jerusalem.
My general take is the Jan Donatelli probably made the case she should be considered a top-tier candidate in her ability to communicate effectively.
John Fritchey also did quite well. He made being an experienced pol and legislator work to his advantage.
Charlie Wheelan and Tom Geoghegan showed they were serious candidates on policy.
IMO, both Mike Quigley and Sara Feigenholtz had problems. Quigley repeated alienated progressives on Israel and Middle East policy. For Quigley to win he needs progressives who do have other options in this race. Feigenholtz was flat. On not question did she give an answer that made anyone think, "Wow, that was a good answer."
Victor Forys was almost a break-out candidate, but not quite.
Annunzio had good moments, but was overshadowed by better candidates. Bryar wasn't able to draw a contrast with others on his issue, health care. He neither advocated a position substantially different, nor was he able to show he had superior understanding of health care as a policy issue. Monteagudo was probably disadvantaged by the format which penalized him for being less assertive than the others.