Monday, October 19, 2009

J Street on the Goldstone Resolution; Anti-Zionists Sabotage J Street

Virtually spot on, I'd say:
Friday’s decision by the United Nations Human Rights Council to refer the Goldstone Report to the UN Security Council further reinforces J Street’s belief that Israel would be well served to immediately establish an independent state commission of inquiry into accusations surrounding Operation Cast Lead.

The UNHRC’s resolution Friday notably failed to include any mention of its findings regarding violence and terror by Hamas directed at Israel and its citizens in the south – drawing condemnation from Judge Goldstone himself. This demonstrates the legitimacy of Israel’s concerns regarding the Council and is yet another reason why Israel itself, not a multilateral body, needs to credibly address the full range of charges and findings in Goldstone’s report.

Such a strategy – which Israel has adopted on several similar occasions in the past – is far preferable to leaving the matter to multinational bodies and governments which do not have Israel’s best interests at heart.

We commend the United States government for opposing and working actively against this one-sided and ill-considered resolution. We urge the U.S. to continue its efforts to promote a balanced approach to the Goldstone Report and to oppose UN Security Council consideration of the UNHRC resolution.

Meanwhile, if I didn't know better I'd assume this Nation piece on J Street was an attempt at sabotage. It tries to link J Street to the burgeoning "boycott, divestment, sanctions" campaign of folks like Naomi "I'm more disturbed by opposition to anti-Semitism than I am by anti-Semitism itself" Klein, and a broader (perceived) disengagement from Israel by young American Jews. Of course, J Street is harshly critical of both these trends, supporting neither the boycotting of Israel nor the distancing of American Jews from Israel. It is an avowedly pro-Israel organization, which is battling against the very linkage that the Nation constructs for it.

I was going to say that since the authors of the piece are both affiliated with the openly anti-Zionist Mondoweiss, cluelessness is another possibility. But then I remembered that these folks are just as opposed to J Street's vision of Israel and Palestine's future as Hamas or the ZOA are, so maybe sabotage is the best explanation.


PG said...

"I'm more disturbed by opposition to anti-Semitism than I am by anti-Semitism itself"

I didn't see that quote in the old post you linked, nor in the interview that that post links.

David Schraub said...

Aren't you aware of all internet traditions, PG? In this case, the one of using quotations to sarcastically paraphrase a persons positions (here, Klein's statement that while both Ahmadinejad's speech at Durban II, and the Jewish student's protest of it, were both "truly awful", it was the former that she found "most disturbing").

PG said...

The "shorter" convention is well-recognized, but how do you propose that a person not familiar with what Klein has said would know that you were making a "sarcastic paraphrase" rather than actually quoting her? People often will use a genuine quote the way you have used a sarcastic paraphrase.

Also, the accurate paraphrase would be "I'm more disturbed by clowns than I am by anti-Semitism." Klein didn't say she was disturbed by all opposition to anti-Semitism, just that in clown form.