This is the result of Zionist "Emergency Cabinets" being placed in control of the most of the formerly Jewish organizations throughout much of the West, creating powerful Zionist Lobbies, instead of organizations acting for the good of the Jewish communities in those countries. These efforts, while exonentially altering Government policies (exposing the effect Lobbyists have on politicians), have alienated and angered Jews throughout the West.
Criticizing Israel is not an act of bigotry
Jewish people can help avert the catastrophic effects of Israeli behaviour, but only by openly opposing it.
>by Jason Kunin
February 27, 2007
A grassroots revolt is underway in Jewish communities throughout the world, a revolt that has panicked the élite organizations that have long functioned as official mouthpieces for the community. The latest sign of this panic is the recent publication by the American Jewish Committee of an essay by Alvin H. Rosenfeld, entitled Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism, which accuses progressive Jews of abetting a resurgent wave of anti-Semitism by publicly criticizing Israel.
This is the latest attempt to conflate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism in order to silence or marginalize criticism of Israel. This approach is widely used in Canada. Upon becoming CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, Bernie Farber declared that one of his goals was to “educate Canadians about the links between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.”
It is misleading for groups like the CJC to pretend that the Jewish community is united in support of Israel. A growing number of Jews around the world are joining the chorus of concern about the deteriorating condition of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories as well as the inferior social and economic status of Israel's own Palestinian population.
In a world where uncritical support for Israel is becoming less and less tenable due to the expanding human rights disaster in the West Bank and Gaza, leaders of Jewish communities outside Israel have circled their wagons, heightened their pro-Israel rhetoric, and demonized Israel's critics. These leaders imply that increased concerns about Israel do not result from that state's actions, but from an increase in anti-Semitism.
Despite this effort to absolve Israel of responsibility for its treatment of Palestinians, Jewish opposition is growing and becoming more organized. On February 5, a group in Britain calling itself Jewish Independent Voices published an open letter in the Guardian newspaper in which they distanced themselves from “Those who claim to speak on behalf of Jews in Britain and other countries (and who) consistently put support for the policies of an occupying power above the human rights of the occupied people.” Among the signatories of the letter were Nobel-prize winning playwright Harold Pinter, filmmaker Mike Leigh, writer John Berger and many others.
This development follows the emergence of similar groups in Sweden (Jews for Israeli-Palestinian Peace), France (Union Juive Francaise pour la paix, Rencontre Progressiste Juive), Italy (Ebrei contro l'occupazione), Germany (Jüdische Stimme für gerechten Frieden in Nahost), Belgium (Union des Progressistes Juifs de Belgique), the United States (Jewish Voice for Peace, Brit Tzedek, Tikkun, the Bronfman-Soros initiative), South Africa, and others, including the umbrella organization European Jews for a Just Peace and the numerous groups within Israel itself.
In Canada, the Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians (ACJC) has been founded as an umbrella organization bringing together Jewish individuals and groups from across the country who oppose Israel's continued domination of the West Bank and Gaza.
Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic, nor does it “bleed into anti-Semitism,” a formulation that says essentially the same thing. Some genuine anti-Semites do use Israel as a cover for maligning the Jewish people as a whole, but it is fallacious to argue that anyone who criticizes Israel is anti-Semitic because anti-Semites attack Israel. There are some anti-Semites who support Israel because they are Christian fundamentalists who see the return of Jews to Jerusalem as a precondition for the return of Christ and the conversion of Jews to Christianity, or because they are xenophobes who want to get rid of Jews in their midst. Anti-Semites take positions in support of and in opposition to Israel.
It is wrong to criticize all Jews for Israel's wrongdoings, yet Israel's leadership and its supporters in the Diaspora consistently encourage this view by insisting that Israel acts on behalf of the entire Jewish people.
This shifts blame for Israel's crimes onto the shoulders of all Jews. But Jewish critics of Israel demonstrate through their words and deeds that the Jewish community is not monolithic in its support of Israel.
Defenders of Israel often argue that Israel is forced to do what it does — to destroy people's homes, to keep them under the boot of occupation, to seal them into walled ghettos, to brutalize them daily with military incursions and random checkpoints — to protect its citizens from Palestinian violence. Palestinian violence, however, is rooted in the theft of their land, the diversion of their water, the violence of the occupation, and the indignity of having one's own very existence posed as a “demographic threat.”
To justify Israel's continued occupation and theft of Palestinian land, the state and its defenders attempt to deny Palestinian suffering, arguing instead that Palestinian resentment is rooted not in Israeli violence, but rather in Islam, or the “Arab mentality,” or a mystical anti-Semitism inherent in Arab or Muslim culture. Consequently, pro-Israel advocacy depends upon on the active dissemination of Islamophobia. Not surprisingly, engendering hatred in this manner inflames anti-Jewish sentiment among Arabs and Muslims. None of this is a recipe for making Jews safe.
Jewish people can help avert the catastrophic effects of Israeli behaviour, but only by taking a stand in opposition to it.
Jason Kunin of Toronto is a member of the administration council of the Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians. This article was written with help from other council members, including Cy Gonick and Dr. Mark Etkin, both of Winnipeg, Andy Lehrer of Toronto, Sid Shniad of Vancouver and Abraham Weizfeld of Montreal.
http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml;
Poll: Attachment of U.S. Jews to Israel falls in past 2 years
Steven M. Cohen - Forward, Opinion
March 4, 2005
The attachment of American Jews to Israel has weakened measurably in the last two years, a recent survey demonstrates, continuing a long-term trend visible during the past decade and a half.
The weakening is apparent in almost every measure of Jewish connection to Israel except for interest in travel to Israel, which showed a slight uptick, and a handful of others that were unchanged. Respondents were less likely than in comparable earlier surveys to say they care about Israel, talk about Israel with others or engage in a range of pro-Israel activities.
Strikingly, there was no parallel decline in other measures of Jewish identification, including religious observance and communal affiliation.
The survey found 26% who said they were "very" emotionally attached to Israel, compared with 31% who said so in a similar survey conducted in 2002. Some two-thirds, 65%, said they follow the news about Israel closely, down from 74% in 2002, while 39% said they talk about Israel frequently with Jewish friends, down from 53% in 2002. Those who talk about Israel frequently with non-Jewish friends dropped to 23% this year from 33% in 2002.
Those who had donated to an Israel-related charity during the previous 12 months dropped to 40% in the current survey from 49% in 2002. Attendance at an Israel-related program dropped to 22% from 27%.
Israel also declined as a component in the respondents' personal Jewish identity. When offered a selection of factors, including religion, community and social justice, as well as "caring about Israel," and asked, "For you personally, how much does being Jewish involve each?" 48% said Israel mattered "a lot," compared with 58% in 2002.
Just 57% affirmed that "caring about Israel is a very important part of my being Jewish," compared with 73% in a similar survey in 1989.
The drop from 1989 appears consistent with a widely noted, long-term generational decline in attachment to Israel. However, generational change is unlikely to explain the dramatic shift during the last two years, which appears to reflect responses to current events in the Middle East.
Tellingly, as many as 37% agreed that they were "often disturbed by Israel's policies and actions," while another 30% were not sure. Just 33% said they disagreed, 4% of them "strongly."
The survey was conducted between December 14, 2004, and January 15, 2005, and included a representative national sample of 1,448 American Jewish households. It was sponsored by the Jewish-Zionist Education Department of the Jewish Agency for Israel.
Nearly all respondents were 25 or older and identified as Jewish by
religion. The sample's demographic and Jewish identity characteristics closely resembled those of respondents identified as Jewish by religion in the United Jewish Communities' 2000-01 National Jewish Population Survey. Seventy percent said they attend a Passover Seder, 42% claimed synagogue membership, and 20% said they keep separate dishes at home for meat and dairy. Questioned on denomination, 9% identified themselves as Orthodox, 36% as Conservative and 40% as Reform.
While most expressions of emotional attachment declined from 2002, some travel-related indicators edged upward. There was a slight climb in respondents who said they planned to visit Israel in the next three years, from 12% to 15%, just outside the margin of error. A larger jump emerged in the number claiming to having encouraged someone to visit Israel, from 19% to 24%.
Some indicators of pro-Israel identification were virtually unchanged from the earlier survey. These include the proportions that made an effort to buy Israeli-made products (30%), and those who write to someone in Israel (19%).
The findings reflect an apparent reversal of a trend noted two years ago, when Palestinian terrorism reached a peak in 2002. At the time, many Israelis complained that although American Jews expressed heightened concern for Israel because of the violence, they were less inclined to visit. Now, it seems, concern has dropped, while readiness to visit Israel has increased.
American Jews traditionally profess a high degree of attachment to Israel. The intensity of that attachment varies considerably, however, ranging from warmth to deep passion, while a small group professes indifference or outright discomfort.
When asked how often they feel proud of Israel, the sample showed considerable range, with 28% answering "always," 38% "often," 29% "sometimes" and 5% "never." Half said they are often or always "excited" by Israel, and 12% said they are never excited by Israel. Slightly more than one-third said they are often or always "engaged" by Israel, while 47% said they are sometimes engaged and just 18% said they are never engaged.
At the same time, a sizable proportion expressed at least some negative feelings toward Israel. More than two-thirds said they are at least sometimes "disturbed" by Israel's policies or actions, and nearly as many said they are "confused." Almost half said they are at least sometimes "ashamed," and fully 39% said they are at least sometimes "alienated" by Israel.
Only 13% said they are "sometimes uncomfortable identifying as a supporter of Israel," with an additional 14% "not sure."
About two-thirds of American Jews view "many" or "most" Israelis in positive terms as "peace-loving," "democratic" and "heroic." But more than 40% see many Israelis as "chauvinist" and "militarist."
When offered sharply critical characterizations of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, more respondents disagreed than agreed. However, substantial numbers were unsure. Thus, by 60% to 11% the sample rejected the assertion that "Israel persecutes a minority population," with 29% not sure. Similarly, by a 65% to 13% margin, they rejected the notion that "Israel occupies lands that belong to another people," with 22% not sure. A narrower margin, 43% to 20% (with 37% unsure), rejected the proposition, "When dealing with Palestinian civilians, Israeli soldiers often engage in unnecessary brutality."
While disagreement with the criticism outnumbered agreement in every instance, the percentage that "strongly" disagreed was lower in each case than the percentage that simply disagreed. Moreover,
when agreement with the criticism was combined with "unsure," it emerged that those who rejected the criticism outnumbered those who did not reject it by a narrower 3-2 majority, and one criticism —
army brutality — was rejected only by a plurality. The patterns point to a rejection of critical views of Israel's treatment of Palestinians, but they hardly amount to consensus, let alone unanimity.
Amid good feeling toward Israel, Israelis and Israeli policies, then, there are signs of doubt, hesitation and qualification. All might inhibit or restrain passionate feelings and expressions of support for Israel.
If the results point to a softening of attachment to Israel, they also point to a major inhibition to travel to Israel, which is commonly seen as an important antidote to detachment. The survey asked respondents, "If you were to travel to Israel, how concerned would you be about your safety?" Almost half, or 46%, were "very concerned," and an additional 42% were "somewhat concerned." Just 10% said they were "not concerned," and 2% were not sure.
Safety concerns might be the single most powerful inhibitor of Israel travel. Of those who were very concerned, only 5% were planning a trip to Israel in three years. When concerns diminished
to "somewhat," the trip planners quadrupled to 22%, and among those with no concerns, travel plans peaked at 37%.
In part, safety concerns are themselves a function of prior trips to Israel. Most of those who had never been to Israel said they were "very concerned," compared with one-fourth of those who had
been there for a short period, and just 7% of those who had been to Israel for stays of three months or longer. Safety concerns were far lower among those with greater attachment to Israel, more knowledge of Israel and the highest involvement in Jewish life.
Thus, fears for one's safety joins a substantial measure of discomfort with Israel as major challenges to advocates of Israel engagement. Yet another, equally daunting, challenge is the diminished interest in Israel among younger American Jews — another key finding to emerge from this survey, about which we will learn more next week.
Steven M. Cohen is a professor at the Melton Center for Jewish
Education of the Hebrew University.
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/nueva_web/infos_materials/reports/jews_israel_poll.htm
It's Official: Jewish Progressive Criticism of Israel Is Now a Movement
The New York Times' stunning piece last week about the American Jewish Committee's effort to smear leftwing Jewish critics of Israel as antisemites did what 1000 blogs, 100 human rights reports, even 10 pieces by Tony Judt, could never do: It embarrassed the Jewish leadership, by exposing the retrograde methods it has resorted to to try and stop debate. More than that, the Times report took a scattered opposition and solidified it, by telling us what we didn't understand: We're having an impact.
Let's declare what's afoot right now: it's a movement. Progressive Jews all over are denouncing the mainstream leadership's staunch support of the hateful occupation, and some of them are linking it to the U.S.'s bloody occupation of Iraq. In England, Independent Jewish Voices, a group of anti-occupation Jews (including Harold Pinter and Eric Hobsbawm) is breaking away from the mainstream organizations to show how bankrupt their lobbying position is. In Australia, Antony Loewenstein sees "dissent growing." His book My Israel Question, which I gather is even more off-the-hook than stuff I write, is to be published in the States this spring. And speaking of the States, Jewish Voice for Peace, an Oakland-based group with chapters nationwide, has lately launched a fabulous website, Muzzlewatch, dedicated to fighting the smears and threats that the lobby has always used against Jews who want to treat Palestinian Arabs with dignity. Meantime, the Union of Progressive Zionists, which brought Breaking the Silence to the U.S. last fall to describe real conditions in the West Bank to young Jews, is fighting to keep its membership on the Israel on Campus Coalition, and winning—a battle with the ZOA whose onset I reported on this blog two months back. Some Hillel groups have welcomed Breaking the Silence.
The one comment I'd add is that I give credit to progressive gentiles for helping to break open this discussion. Yes, Meretz-USA has been tireless. Norman Finkelstein has given hundreds of speeches. But Mearsheimer, Walt, and Jimmy Carter released this movement last year by embarrassing Jews with statements about the immorality of the treatment of Palestinians that were mainstreamed. They gave license to the media to write about this stuff, and have spurred progressive Jews to play their part and recover progressive voices going back to Hannah Arendt and Elmer Berger. 60 years before Walt and Mearsheimer, Rabbi Berger warned in The Jewish Dilemma about the Zionist "machine" and the ways it would transform Jewish identity and politics in the name of nationalism.
Hark! I hear the sound of the tumbrils, rumbling through the streets of northwest Washington, collecting neoconservatives.
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_801.shtml
Jewish people can help avert the catastrophic effects of Israeli behaviour, but only by openly opposing it.
>by Jason Kunin
February 27, 2007
A grassroots revolt is underway in Jewish communities throughout the world, a revolt that has panicked the élite organizations that have long functioned as official mouthpieces for the community. The latest sign of this panic is the recent publication by the American Jewish Committee of an essay by Alvin H. Rosenfeld, entitled Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism, which accuses progressive Jews of abetting a resurgent wave of anti-Semitism by publicly criticizing Israel.
This is the latest attempt to conflate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism in order to silence or marginalize criticism of Israel. This approach is widely used in Canada. Upon becoming CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, Bernie Farber declared that one of his goals was to “educate Canadians about the links between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.”
It is misleading for groups like the CJC to pretend that the Jewish community is united in support of Israel. A growing number of Jews around the world are joining the chorus of concern about the deteriorating condition of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories as well as the inferior social and economic status of Israel's own Palestinian population.
In a world where uncritical support for Israel is becoming less and less tenable due to the expanding human rights disaster in the West Bank and Gaza, leaders of Jewish communities outside Israel have circled their wagons, heightened their pro-Israel rhetoric, and demonized Israel's critics. These leaders imply that increased concerns about Israel do not result from that state's actions, but from an increase in anti-Semitism.
Despite this effort to absolve Israel of responsibility for its treatment of Palestinians, Jewish opposition is growing and becoming more organized. On February 5, a group in Britain calling itself Jewish Independent Voices published an open letter in the Guardian newspaper in which they distanced themselves from “Those who claim to speak on behalf of Jews in Britain and other countries (and who) consistently put support for the policies of an occupying power above the human rights of the occupied people.” Among the signatories of the letter were Nobel-prize winning playwright Harold Pinter, filmmaker Mike Leigh, writer John Berger and many others.
This development follows the emergence of similar groups in Sweden (Jews for Israeli-Palestinian Peace), France (Union Juive Francaise pour la paix, Rencontre Progressiste Juive), Italy (Ebrei contro l'occupazione), Germany (Jüdische Stimme für gerechten Frieden in Nahost), Belgium (Union des Progressistes Juifs de Belgique), the United States (Jewish Voice for Peace, Brit Tzedek, Tikkun, the Bronfman-Soros initiative), South Africa, and others, including the umbrella organization European Jews for a Just Peace and the numerous groups within Israel itself.
In Canada, the Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians (ACJC) has been founded as an umbrella organization bringing together Jewish individuals and groups from across the country who oppose Israel's continued domination of the West Bank and Gaza.
Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic, nor does it “bleed into anti-Semitism,” a formulation that says essentially the same thing. Some genuine anti-Semites do use Israel as a cover for maligning the Jewish people as a whole, but it is fallacious to argue that anyone who criticizes Israel is anti-Semitic because anti-Semites attack Israel. There are some anti-Semites who support Israel because they are Christian fundamentalists who see the return of Jews to Jerusalem as a precondition for the return of Christ and the conversion of Jews to Christianity, or because they are xenophobes who want to get rid of Jews in their midst. Anti-Semites take positions in support of and in opposition to Israel.
It is wrong to criticize all Jews for Israel's wrongdoings, yet Israel's leadership and its supporters in the Diaspora consistently encourage this view by insisting that Israel acts on behalf of the entire Jewish people.
This shifts blame for Israel's crimes onto the shoulders of all Jews. But Jewish critics of Israel demonstrate through their words and deeds that the Jewish community is not monolithic in its support of Israel.
Defenders of Israel often argue that Israel is forced to do what it does — to destroy people's homes, to keep them under the boot of occupation, to seal them into walled ghettos, to brutalize them daily with military incursions and random checkpoints — to protect its citizens from Palestinian violence. Palestinian violence, however, is rooted in the theft of their land, the diversion of their water, the violence of the occupation, and the indignity of having one's own very existence posed as a “demographic threat.”
To justify Israel's continued occupation and theft of Palestinian land, the state and its defenders attempt to deny Palestinian suffering, arguing instead that Palestinian resentment is rooted not in Israeli violence, but rather in Islam, or the “Arab mentality,” or a mystical anti-Semitism inherent in Arab or Muslim culture. Consequently, pro-Israel advocacy depends upon on the active dissemination of Islamophobia. Not surprisingly, engendering hatred in this manner inflames anti-Jewish sentiment among Arabs and Muslims. None of this is a recipe for making Jews safe.
Jewish people can help avert the catastrophic effects of Israeli behaviour, but only by taking a stand in opposition to it.
Jason Kunin of Toronto is a member of the administration council of the Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians. This article was written with help from other council members, including Cy Gonick and Dr. Mark Etkin, both of Winnipeg, Andy Lehrer of Toronto, Sid Shniad of Vancouver and Abraham Weizfeld of Montreal.
http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml; Poll: Attachment of U.S. Jews to Israel falls in past 2 years
Steven M. Cohen - Forward, Opinion
March 4, 2005
The attachment of American Jews to Israel has weakened measurably in the last two years, a recent survey demonstrates, continuing a long-term trend visible during the past decade and a half.
The weakening is apparent in almost every measure of Jewish connection to Israel except for interest in travel to Israel, which showed a slight uptick, and a handful of others that were unchanged. Respondents were less likely than in comparable earlier surveys to say they care about Israel, talk about Israel with others or engage in a range of pro-Israel activities.
Strikingly, there was no parallel decline in other measures of Jewish identification, including religious observance and communal affiliation.
The survey found 26% who said they were "very" emotionally attached to Israel, compared with 31% who said so in a similar survey conducted in 2002. Some two-thirds, 65%, said they follow the news about Israel closely, down from 74% in 2002, while 39% said they talk about Israel frequently with Jewish friends, down from 53% in 2002. Those who talk about Israel frequently with non-Jewish friends dropped to 23% this year from 33% in 2002.
Those who had donated to an Israel-related charity during the previous 12 months dropped to 40% in the current survey from 49% in 2002. Attendance at an Israel-related program dropped to 22% from 27%.
Israel also declined as a component in the respondents' personal Jewish identity. When offered a selection of factors, including religion, community and social justice, as well as "caring about Israel," and asked, "For you personally, how much does being Jewish involve each?" 48% said Israel mattered "a lot," compared with 58% in 2002.
Just 57% affirmed that "caring about Israel is a very important part of my being Jewish," compared with 73% in a similar survey in 1989.
The drop from 1989 appears consistent with a widely noted, long-term generational decline in attachment to Israel. However, generational change is unlikely to explain the dramatic shift during the last two years, which appears to reflect responses to current events in the Middle East.
Tellingly, as many as 37% agreed that they were "often disturbed by Israel's policies and actions," while another 30% were not sure. Just 33% said they disagreed, 4% of them "strongly."
The survey was conducted between December 14, 2004, and January 15, 2005, and included a representative national sample of 1,448 American Jewish households. It was sponsored by the Jewish-Zionist Education Department of the Jewish Agency for Israel.
Nearly all respondents were 25 or older and identified as Jewish by
religion. The sample's demographic and Jewish identity characteristics closely resembled those of respondents identified as Jewish by religion in the United Jewish Communities' 2000-01 National Jewish Population Survey. Seventy percent said they attend a Passover Seder, 42% claimed synagogue membership, and 20% said they keep separate dishes at home for meat and dairy. Questioned on denomination, 9% identified themselves as Orthodox, 36% as Conservative and 40% as Reform.
While most expressions of emotional attachment declined from 2002, some travel-related indicators edged upward. There was a slight climb in respondents who said they planned to visit Israel in the next three years, from 12% to 15%, just outside the margin of error. A larger jump emerged in the number claiming to having encouraged someone to visit Israel, from 19% to 24%.
Some indicators of pro-Israel identification were virtually unchanged from the earlier survey. These include the proportions that made an effort to buy Israeli-made products (30%), and those who write to someone in Israel (19%).
The findings reflect an apparent reversal of a trend noted two years ago, when Palestinian terrorism reached a peak in 2002. At the time, many Israelis complained that although American Jews expressed heightened concern for Israel because of the violence, they were less inclined to visit. Now, it seems, concern has dropped, while readiness to visit Israel has increased.
American Jews traditionally profess a high degree of attachment to Israel. The intensity of that attachment varies considerably, however, ranging from warmth to deep passion, while a small group professes indifference or outright discomfort.
When asked how often they feel proud of Israel, the sample showed considerable range, with 28% answering "always," 38% "often," 29% "sometimes" and 5% "never." Half said they are often or always "excited" by Israel, and 12% said they are never excited by Israel. Slightly more than one-third said they are often or always "engaged" by Israel, while 47% said they are sometimes engaged and just 18% said they are never engaged.
At the same time, a sizable proportion expressed at least some negative feelings toward Israel. More than two-thirds said they are at least sometimes "disturbed" by Israel's policies or actions, and nearly as many said they are "confused." Almost half said they are at least sometimes "ashamed," and fully 39% said they are at least sometimes "alienated" by Israel.
Only 13% said they are "sometimes uncomfortable identifying as a supporter of Israel," with an additional 14% "not sure."
About two-thirds of American Jews view "many" or "most" Israelis in positive terms as "peace-loving," "democratic" and "heroic." But more than 40% see many Israelis as "chauvinist" and "militarist."
When offered sharply critical characterizations of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, more respondents disagreed than agreed. However, substantial numbers were unsure. Thus, by 60% to 11% the sample rejected the assertion that "Israel persecutes a minority population," with 29% not sure. Similarly, by a 65% to 13% margin, they rejected the notion that "Israel occupies lands that belong to another people," with 22% not sure. A narrower margin, 43% to 20% (with 37% unsure), rejected the proposition, "When dealing with Palestinian civilians, Israeli soldiers often engage in unnecessary brutality."
While disagreement with the criticism outnumbered agreement in every instance, the percentage that "strongly" disagreed was lower in each case than the percentage that simply disagreed. Moreover,
when agreement with the criticism was combined with "unsure," it emerged that those who rejected the criticism outnumbered those who did not reject it by a narrower 3-2 majority, and one criticism —
army brutality — was rejected only by a plurality. The patterns point to a rejection of critical views of Israel's treatment of Palestinians, but they hardly amount to consensus, let alone unanimity.
Amid good feeling toward Israel, Israelis and Israeli policies, then, there are signs of doubt, hesitation and qualification. All might inhibit or restrain passionate feelings and expressions of support for Israel.
If the results point to a softening of attachment to Israel, they also point to a major inhibition to travel to Israel, which is commonly seen as an important antidote to detachment. The survey asked respondents, "If you were to travel to Israel, how concerned would you be about your safety?" Almost half, or 46%, were "very concerned," and an additional 42% were "somewhat concerned." Just 10% said they were "not concerned," and 2% were not sure.
Safety concerns might be the single most powerful inhibitor of Israel travel. Of those who were very concerned, only 5% were planning a trip to Israel in three years. When concerns diminished
to "somewhat," the trip planners quadrupled to 22%, and among those with no concerns, travel plans peaked at 37%.
In part, safety concerns are themselves a function of prior trips to Israel. Most of those who had never been to Israel said they were "very concerned," compared with one-fourth of those who had
been there for a short period, and just 7% of those who had been to Israel for stays of three months or longer. Safety concerns were far lower among those with greater attachment to Israel, more knowledge of Israel and the highest involvement in Jewish life.
Thus, fears for one's safety joins a substantial measure of discomfort with Israel as major challenges to advocates of Israel engagement. Yet another, equally daunting, challenge is the diminished interest in Israel among younger American Jews — another key finding to emerge from this survey, about which we will learn more next week.
Steven M. Cohen is a professor at the Melton Center for Jewish
Education of the Hebrew University.
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/nueva_web/infos_materials/reports/jews_israel_poll.htm It's Official: Jewish Progressive Criticism of Israel Is Now a Movement
The New York Times' stunning piece last week about the American Jewish Committee's effort to smear leftwing Jewish critics of Israel as antisemites did what 1000 blogs, 100 human rights reports, even 10 pieces by Tony Judt, could never do: It embarrassed the Jewish leadership, by exposing the retrograde methods it has resorted to to try and stop debate. More than that, the Times report took a scattered opposition and solidified it, by telling us what we didn't understand: We're having an impact.
Let's declare what's afoot right now: it's a movement. Progressive Jews all over are denouncing the mainstream leadership's staunch support of the hateful occupation, and some of them are linking it to the U.S.'s bloody occupation of Iraq. In England, Independent Jewish Voices, a group of anti-occupation Jews (including Harold Pinter and Eric Hobsbawm) is breaking away from the mainstream organizations to show how bankrupt their lobbying position is. In Australia, Antony Loewenstein sees "dissent growing." His book My Israel Question, which I gather is even more off-the-hook than stuff I write, is to be published in the States this spring. And speaking of the States, Jewish Voice for Peace, an Oakland-based group with chapters nationwide, has lately launched a fabulous website, Muzzlewatch, dedicated to fighting the smears and threats that the lobby has always used against Jews who want to treat Palestinian Arabs with dignity. Meantime, the Union of Progressive Zionists, which brought Breaking the Silence to the U.S. last fall to describe real conditions in the West Bank to young Jews, is fighting to keep its membership on the Israel on Campus Coalition, and winning—a battle with the ZOA whose onset I reported on this blog two months back. Some Hillel groups have welcomed Breaking the Silence.
The one comment I'd add is that I give credit to progressive gentiles for helping to break open this discussion. Yes, Meretz-USA has been tireless. Norman Finkelstein has given hundreds of speeches. But Mearsheimer, Walt, and Jimmy Carter released this movement last year by embarrassing Jews with statements about the immorality of the treatment of Palestinians that were mainstreamed. They gave license to the media to write about this stuff, and have spurred progressive Jews to play their part and recover progressive voices going back to Hannah Arendt and Elmer Berger. 60 years before Walt and Mearsheimer, Rabbi Berger warned in The Jewish Dilemma about the Zionist "machine" and the ways it would transform Jewish identity and politics in the name of nationalism.
Hark! I hear the sound of the tumbrils, rumbling through the streets of northwest Washington, collecting neoconservatives.
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_801.shtml
Comments
Hide the following 15 comments
im jewish, hate what israels doing but still see a reason for israel to exist.
03.03.2007 15:29
one last thing, as a jew, i do think that israel is part of my religon, but this doesnt mean that every critisism on it as an antisemetic one.
j in the uk
unresolved issues
03.03.2007 16:35
Can I presume that would include Palestinians who want to get away from refugee camps that they've been forced to endure since 1948?
"as a jew, i do think that israel is part of my religon,"
Israel is also very much a part of every christian and muslim's religion.
Ariel's left bollock
im jewish hate what israeli is doing but...yeath yeath
03.03.2007 17:12
the point missing in the previous comment is that israel does not provide a safe place for jews to go, but rather contributes to the insecurity of everyone in the world including jews by its racist constitution and agressive militarism. Leaving the palestinians alone seems a simple solution but you also need to think about giving them back all the land stolen by israel.
In my view all states are illegitimate simply by their unjust monopoly of power in a central government, but israel monopolises power for one religious group at the expense of an indigenous population, so this is an aggravated illegitimacy.
Israel is a colonial state and palestinians have the legal and moral right to use force to defend themselves from the colonialists. The israelis need to take sides with palestinians to defeat the occupation and the colonial state. If they don't they are part of the colonising force and become legitimate targets. If anti-semitism continues across the world is is more due to the colonial actions of israel in the middle east than any campaign of renewed nazism in europe or elswhere. Indeed it is the political elites that support israel for stategic reasons that can more closly be identified with the national socialists. Jews deserve to be safe everywhere, but not by means of an morally unsustainable permanent war on a largely unarmed population, in order to prop up a self deluded state ghetto society.
jj
refugee camps after 60 years?
03.03.2007 17:25
author
Thanks
03.03.2007 17:54
I correspond with Israelis who do not consider themselves Zionist, and others who do, although they oppose organized Zionism and its reprehensible actions and beliefs.
I would suggest a screening of "The Other Zionist", if you can get ahold of it, possibly the best documentary on the conflict I've ever seen. Then again, these seem to be few and far between to begin with!
"i do think that there should be a country called israel which should preach peace, give up its nukes and pull out of the west bank and gaza and leave the palastianians alone, while at the same time providing a safe state which will accept all jews and probably none jews who wish to come there to get away from antisemitism or what ever else there reason could be"
So how do you think this can be achieved? The current rulers of the country will not allow such a thing to take place, and they've indoctrinated generations of Extremists who defend them.
"but all this media polarization is spliting a subject which has lots of gray areas into a black and white debate, israel is bad, israel is good debate, which is just not the case."
Actually, right now, it is. And you cannot ever hope to find a solution to a problem unless you openly discuss the reasons for it, and accept the fact that it exists in the first place.
"i dont think an economic boycott as a way to bring about this."
I think it helps a great deal, if only to bring much-needed attention to the problems.
"The israelis need to take sides with palestinians to defeat the occupation and the colonial state."
Indeed, and this has begun to happen throughout Israel and Jewish communities around the world. As this article states, however, Zionism has hijacked much of organized Jewry, and is using it for its own purposes.
It's up to Jews everywhere to speak out publicly against these actions, and send a message that Zionism's Lobbying arm - empowered and stregnthened through the hijacking of these organizations - do not represent the views of a strong majority of the world's Jewish population.
"If anti-semitism continues across the world is is more due to the colonial actions of israel in the middle east than any ..."
Indeed. But antisemitism is at its lowest point in recorded history, and at the recent Israeli Summit on Antisemitism, it was actually demonstrated to have dropped. Suspiciously, the chair suggested this was an "alarming trend". That's because Zionism uses the threat of antisemitism to manipulate Jews and their fears.
I hope you will seriously consider joining one of the growing numbers of anti-Zionist Jewish groups, and work to help bring an end to Zionism's perpetual war to wipe Palestine off the map.
Zionism, Irrelevant Within A Generation
wow, a measured discussion...
04.03.2007 14:13
> Indeed. But antisemitism is at its lowest point in recorded history
Last year when there was some report in the UK on levels of anti-semitism and anti-semitic attacks, it had increased substantially (of course partly fuelled by Israel & middle East happenings, partly just because of British people's current ignorance, fear and lack of being able to value them/ourselves outside sexiness/machismo etc).
Palestinians are still in refugee camps for a number of reasons. They want to return to their homes in Israel, and they largely still feel that's where they are from; that and the nature of the overcrowded physical space breed community and a sense of *relative* safety. There's no money or space to build new settlements, and the Israeli army & settlers control the West Bank & Gaza. In other countries, such as Lebanon or Jordan, some of the above reasons, plus the governments there don't accept the Palestinians as permanent inhabitants of their countries.
amazed
Apartheid In Israel
04.03.2007 14:35
"Last year when there was some report in the UK on levels of anti-semitism and anti-semitic attacks, it had increased substantially"
Could you link to the report in question? Every organized summit on the subject (and there are many ...), even the most recent, hosted by Israeli Zionists themselves, noted a drop. Perhaps you're referring to one of them which attempted to link informed and honest criticism of Zionism as "antisemitism". This is all-too-common amongst these Extremists, who cannot support their beliefs and actions honestly, and instead, must resort to smear campaigns, libel, and Disinformation.
"They want to return to their homes in Israel, and they largely still feel that's where they are from; that and the nature of the overcrowded physical space breed community and a sense of *relative* safety."
And since the Right of Return is enshrined in law, this is an issue which the international community should be addressing. That they do not only highlights the power and influence of the Zionist Lobby, which has a habit of making such actions political suicide in most Western countries still claiming to be "democracies".
"There's no money or space to build new settlements, and the Israeli army & settlers control the West Bank & Gaza."
In short, Israel will not allow them back because this would threaten the "desired demographics" of their state. (All too much akin to other such, failed movements, like Naziism and S. African Apartheid.)
Israel does not wish the issue to be addressed, because it is inimical of their original sin, the Ethnic Cleansing of the region of Palestine now referred to as "Israel", which was the opening salvo in the perpetual war to wipe Palestine off the map.
Here's is the recent UN report on Apartheid in Israel:
UN Report In Full
Your wish is our command
04.03.2007 17:27
A Plant
Right of Return
04.03.2007 17:50
author
Points
04.03.2007 19:12
Nevertheless, genuine antisemitism remains at its lowest point in history. The Israeli Zionists, who use this fear to manipulate Jews into supporting Zionism, said this drop represented "a disturbing trend".
No, the Palestinian Right of Return is enshrined in law because of the UN resolutions on the matter.
Here's is the recent UN report on Apartheid in Israel:
UN Report On Israeli Apartheid
attacks.
04.03.2007 21:00
So the Palestinians are guaranteed a Right of Return, but other refugees are not? Any particualrl reason why?
author
Points
05.03.2007 13:38
I already addressed your Straw Men. Anything to say about the subject of the original article?
The reports included several incidents which were proven or suspected to have been hoaxes.
Nevertheless, genuine antisemitism remains at its lowest point in history. The Israeli Zionists, who use this fear to manipulate Jews into supporting Zionism, said this drop represented "a disturbing trend".
No, the Palestinian Right of Return is enshrined in law because of the UN resolutions on the matter.
Here's is the recent UN report on Apartheid in Israel:
Zionism, Irrelevant Within A Generation
more attacks
05.03.2007 14:41
Meanwhile, in the real world -
Rather than parrot a previous response, it would be more helpful if you could tell us why Palestinian refugees have been singled out for a Right of Return which apparently is not avialble to other refugees,
author
...
06.03.2007 12:01
The Palestinians come from what was British Mandate Palestine, now called Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. They had been there for over a thousand years. ( do you remember a little thing called the crusades, where we tried to turf out the arabs from Jerusalem )? And then some western colonists came along, whose long dead ancestors had once lived in that land, and turfed them out, like the settlers came to America and wiped out the Indigenous Americans. The only crime of the Palestinians was that they were living where the zionist settlers wanted to live, and the settlers took their land and homes by force.
What is fair and just is that they return. The jews have every right to live there too. But together, and as equals with, the Palestinians whose land that really is. Because like thieves, the zionists stole that land, at the point of a gun, and it is they who need to ask forgiveness from the people they wronged.
If they continue their arrogant strutting, and this idea that anything they do is justified to protect their interests, eventually all their allies will become sick of them, and their enemies will multiply even more, and the fate of the Jewish state, and the Jewish people, will be in grave risk. What is anti-semitic? Anti-semitic is murdering and stealing in the name of the Jewish people, in saying that these actions are permitted for the sake of a Jewish state, so that the name of the Jews is permanently tarnished by the idea of mindless nationalism and colonial violence. Who are for the Jews? Those who are trying to tell them, just stop a moment, look at what you are doing, look at how your actions are leading to your own destruction.
If you have a friend, and he decides he wants to commit a crime are you a better friend if you a) Stay quiet and let him do it, or b) Do everything in your power to stop him, so that he doesn't ruin his life and future.
Hermes
Anti-Zionist Jewish Coalition Grows
06.03.2007 23:02
Jewish coalition calls for open debate on Palestine
A COALITION of prominent Australian Jews, including the philosopher Peter Singer, publisher Louise Adler and Robert Richter, QC, has sparked a furore in the Jewish community by announcing it will challenge what it sees as extreme pro-Israeli bias among Jews in Australia.
The group, Independent Australian Jewish Voices, has been criticised by some Jewish authorities for calling for more open debate on Israeli's treatment of Palestinians.
The organisation yesterday launched an online campaign to have "alternative voices" heard in the media. One organiser claimed many Australian Jews were "basically brainwashed" into unthinking support for Israeli government policy towards Palestine.
The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, a major think tank, said the group was dangerous and unrepresentative.
"Some of the individuals are clearly committed to the delegitimisation of Israel," said Colin Rubenstein, the executive director of the council.
"They're simply using their Jewish ethnic background. It is clearly a small number of Jewish-born individuals who make their Jewishness known while they are being critical of Israel," Mr Rubenstein said.
A visiting British author, Melanie Phillips, last week nicknamed the group "Jews for Genocide", according to the Australian Jewish News. Phillips, who wrote Londonistan, a book criticising elements of the British Muslim community, could not be contacted to verify the claim yesterday.
Ms Adler, Melbourne University Press chief executive, a signatory to the group's petition, said she was outraged by the council's references to "Jewish-born individuals" when commenting on the group.
"When you are classified as Jewish-born or not, or who is a legitimate Jew - I don't want to use this analogy but you can only go back to the Third Reich," Ms Adler said.
"That criticism of Israel is automatically assumed to be anti-Semitism just equates to a way of shutting down debate. In Australia, in the early 21st century, we should be able to be more mature than that."
Mr Rubenstein said the coverage received by the group "made a nonsense of the claim that they are somehow suppressed or silenced".
The organisation is modelled on a similar Jewish group launched last month in Britain that includes the Nobel Prize winner Harold Pinter, the comedian Stephen Fry and the filmmaker Mike Leigh.
Peter Slezak, one of the Australian project's founders and a senior lecturer in history and philosophy at the University of NSW, said supporters wanted "to stand up and let it be known that we have the right to question Israeli policy, that we believe in fair treatment of Palestinian people as well as Israelis."
Professor Slezak, whose mother survived the Auschwitz concentration camp in World War II, said he had received a death threat at the weekend after his views were presented in the Jewish media.
"There are people out there in the community who respond to this dog whistling, these references to Jewish-born and so on," Professor Slezak said. "There are simply a lot of people in the community who have basically been brainwashed over the years."
He conceded that the group's views represented a minority of Australian Jews, but said many were "quietly disturbed" by outspoken support for Israeli actions.
The organisation, which opened a website with 120 signatures yesterday, is supported by a list of prominent Australian academics and activists, including the Greens MLC Ian Cohen, the UTS lecturer Eva Cox and the La Trobe University professor Dennis Altman.
It hopes to gather thousands more signatures in coming days, hold forums and encourage further debate about Israel's actions.
www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/03/05/1172943356185.html
Zionist Groups Fear Public Backlash Over Iran
Forward Staff | Fri. Feb 02, 2007
While Jewish communal leaders focus most of their current lobbying efforts on pressing the United States to take a tough line against Iran and its nuclear program, some are privately voicing fears that they will be accused of driving America into a war with the regime in Tehran.
In early advocacy efforts on the issue, Jewish organizations stressed the threat that a nuclear Iran would pose to Israel in light of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s calls to “wipe Israel off the map.”
(But of course, it later came out that he never said such a thing, which embarassed many, while others continue to perpetuate this lie.)
Now, with concerns mounting that Israel and its supporters might be blamed for any military confrontation, Jewish groups are seeking to widen their argument, asserting that an Iranian nuclear bomb would threaten the West and endanger pro-American Sunni Muslim states in the region.
(So, they're not backing away from the push for war, just trying to re-frame their Propaganda, in order to hide their role in warmongering.)
Jess Hordes, Washington director of the Anti-Defamation League, said that the strategy of broadening the case against Iran was not an attempt to divert attention from the threats to Israel. “It is a fact that Iran is a danger to the whole world,” Hordes said. “We are not just saying it to hide our concerns about Israel.”
(Attacking Iran, on behalf of radical Zionism, poses a greater threat to the people of the West.)
Yet many advocacy efforts, even when not linked to Israel, carry indelibly Jewish (or Zionist) fingerprints.
Last week, Jewish groups claimed victory when the United Nations approved a resolution denouncing Holocaust denial, with Iran’s regime as the obvious target. Additionally, numerous Jewish activists are pressing in advertisements and Internet appeals for Ahmadinejad to be indicted in The Hague for incitement to genocide.
(Supporting the original article's assessments, and those of the Jews organizing against these hijacked institutions.)
In warning of possible scapegoating, insiders point to the experience of the Iraq War. Since the initial invasion in 2003, antiwar groups have charged, with growing vehemence, that the war was promoted by Jewish groups acting in Israel’s interest — even though the invasion enjoyed bipartisan backing and popular support, and was not at the top of most Jewish organizations’ agendas.
(But prominent Zionists and Israelis were instrumental in the push for war, as well as the lies and propaganda which facilitated it.)
The Iraq backlash prompted former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon to order in 2005 that his ministers keep a low profile on Iran.
Now, however, Jewish groups are indeed playing a lead role in pressing for a hard line on Iran. The campaign comes at a time when President Bush’s popularity has reached record lows and members of both parties are cautioning against a rush toward war.
(And the power of the Zionist Lobby, as well as Israel's role in the war on Islam, has become a matter of public debate.)
Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, addressed the fears head-on last week in an address to Israel’s prestigious Herzliya Conference. Lamenting what he called “the poisoning of America,” Hoenlein painted a dire picture of American public discourse turning increasingly anti-Jewish and anti-Israel in the year ahead.
(But of course, this is little more than yet another attempt to characterize legitimate and informed concern as criticism, as being directed at Jews, instead of at the Zionists, where it actually has been. His excuses are the reason the Jews in the original article are revolting against these organizations.)
Hoenlein dated the trend to the 2005 arrest of two former employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, on charges of passing classified national security information. Hoenlein argued that the Jewish community made a major mistake by not forcefully criticizing the arrests.
(As opposed to criticizing the actions ...)
Speaking via video, Hoenlein listed several events that had occurred since then: the release of the essay criticizing the “Israel Lobby” by two distinguished professors, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer; the publication of former president Jimmy Carter’s best-selling book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid”; the suggestion by former NATO supreme commander and Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark that “New York money people” were pushing America into war, and claims by former U.S. weapons inspector Scott Ritter that Israel is pushing the United States to attack Iran.
“In the beginning of the Iraq war they talked about the ‘neocons’ as a code word,” Hoenlein said. “Now we see that code words are no longer necessary.” He warned that the United States is nearing a situation similar to that of Britain, where delegitimization of Israel is widespread.
“This is a cancer that starts from the top and works its way down,” he said. “It poisons the opinions among elites which trickle down into society.”
(Not so much 'poisons' as 'frees'.)
According to Hoenlein, such critics tend not only to delegitimize Israel but also to “intimidate American Jews not to speak out.” He called on American Jews to take action against this phenomenon, saying that Christian Zionists seemed at times more willing than Jews to fight back.
(That's because Jews are waking up to the fact that they've been used and betrayed, and widespread war and aggression have been the result.)
Another instance of casting blame, less widely reported, was attributed to former secretary of state Colin Powell. In a new biography, by Washington Post writer Karen De Young, Powell is said to have put at least some of the blame for the Iraq war on Jewish groups. The book, “Soldier: The Life of Colin Powell,” claims that Powell used to refer to the pro-war advisers surrounding former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld as the “Jinsa crowd.” Jinsa is the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a hawkish think tank that supported the Iraq war.
(And of course, was instrumental in pushing for it, just as it is with Iran. And again, these are not "Jewish" groups so much as Zionist Organizations.)
Thomas Neumann, Jinsa’s executive director, said he was not offended by Powell’s reference, although he was surprised that the former secretary of state would single out a Jewish group when naming those who supported the war. “I am not accusing Powell of anything, but these are words that the antisemites will use in the future,” Neumann said.
(Except that he was pointing directly at the Zionists and Israelis behind the push for war.)
Whatever worries exist about a negative backlash over Israel, they have not deterred Jewish and pro-Israel activists from publicly pressing for tough U.S. action against Tehran or invoking concern for Israel.
A particularly forceful argument for a hard line against Iran appeared this week in The New Republic, a Washington insider journal widely viewed as a bellwether of pro-Israel opinion.
(Which was just bought by CanWest, an extreme right-wing, Zionist-owned propaganda conduit based in Canada.)
The lengthy article, written by two respected Israeli writers, Michael Oren and Yossi Klein Halevi, both fellows at the Shalem Center, a hawkish Jerusalem think tank, names Iran as the main threat to Israeli survival, regional stability and to the entire world order. This theme has been echoed in publications and press releases put out by most major Jewish groups, including Aipac and the Conference of Presidents.
(Proving, once again, that the critics are right, and that a backlash against these Zionist groups is well-deserved ...)
“The international community now has an opportunity to uphold that order,” Oren and Klein Halevi wrote. “If it fails, then Israel will have no choice but to uphold its role as refuge of the Jewish people. A Jewish state that allows itself to be threatened with nuclear weapons — by a country that denies the genocide against Europe’s six million Jews while threatening Israel’s six million Jews — will forfeit its right to speak in the name of Jewish history.”
(Yeah, yeah, yeah ... Note that it's the Zionists tossing the actual military threats about!)
Debate in Washington intensified last month when the U.S. military began to move against Iranian agents in Iraq. The spotlight has now turned to the Democratic-led Congress, with both hardliners and doves anxiously seeking to gauge lawmakers’ reactions to the crisis. Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, an outspoken critic of Bush’s foreign policy, last week introduced a non-binding resolution requiring congressional approval for any American military action against Iran. “To forestall a looming disaster, Congress must act to save the checks and balances established by the Constitution,” Byrd said in a statement when presenting his proposed resolution. In the House, Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas introduced a resolution calling on the administration to adopt the Iraq Study Group recommendations and to engage with Iran. Also in the House, the 70-member Progressive Caucus held a public forum last week on alternatives to preemptive war against Iran.
(Luckily for Israel's Extremists, the current "President" doesn't listen to these people.)
Many Democrats, however, are treading lightly. Though many favor talks with Iran — including Rep. Tom Lantos of California, chair of the House International Relations Committee — there is still no significant move in Congress toward barring the president from taking military action against Iran.
(That's because both of the absolutely-corrupt sides of The Party in DC are pretty much the same.)
Congressional sources speculated this week that Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, might take the lead on such a measure. On January 11, Biden sent a letter to Bush stating that Congress has not authorized any military incursion into Iran or Syria. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, also stressed the need for congressional approval prior to any military action.
A Democratic staffer described this week the sense of frustration Democrats are feeling over the president’s stance toward Iran. “The administration has now the worst of all worlds,” the staffer said. “It blocked any diplomatic channel with Iran and at the same time cannot generate the needed sympathy for the issue among the Russians and Chinese in order to apply pressure on Iran.”
Jewish organizational officials and pro-Israel lobbyists on Capitol Hill downplayed the possibility that Congress might play a significant role in limiting the administration’s response to Iranian nuclear ambitions. “It is very premature,” one lobbyist said. “The administration has no war plan and Congress has no plan to block such a war.”
If military action is ultimately needed to deal with the issue, it will be difficult to secure public support, because the administration “lied” about intelligence before the Iraq war, said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat.
(No need to put that in quotes. The point is not disputed.)
“The fact that the administration lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq means that if we get into a real problem with Iran and if it’s coming to a crunch there, God forbid, about nuclear weapons, it will be very, very hard for the administration to convince anybody just because they have a record of such dishonesty,” Nadler said. “The administration lied about Iraq, and one of the consequences of lying is that people don’t believe you even when you’re telling the truth.”
(And of course, the complete lack of evidence, or the fact that several lies in regards to the allegations against Iran have already been exposed, both on the part of the US and Israeli Extremists, doesn't really help the case.)
Nathan Guttman in Washington, with reporting by Daniel Treiman from New York.
www.forward.com/articles/groups-fear-public-backlash-over-iran/
Zionism, Irrelevant Within A Generation