I pose a direct challenge to J Street and its Executive Director, Jeremy Ben-Ami: Do you or do not accept the argument, being made by many of Israel's enemies, that there is a direct relationship between Israel's actions on the West Bank and American casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan? In his article entitled "Alan Dershowitz is Wrong" Ben-Ami studiously avoids answering that question, which was the main point of my original article, J Street Can No Longer Claim to Be Pro-Israel. This is typical of J Street, which claims on the one hand to be pro-Israel, while on the other hand, appealing to many of the worst anti-Israel extremists. That is why J Street refuses to make tough choices that might alienate some of their extremist base. Instead they are satisfied to distort my record, quite deliberately and knowingly. Ben-Ami suggest that I oppose to the two-state solution, favor the continuation of settlements and am against efforts to promote peace. He knows that this is entirely false, because we have debated these issues and our debate is easily available on YouTube for all to see. In that debate, I make it as clear as possible that I agree with J Street on the settlements on the two-state solution and on the need to bring about a peaceful resolution. Where we disagree is on Israel's security, about which Ben-Ami is always vague.
I do not believe that there is any relationship between Israel's actions on the West Bank, misguided as they may be, and American security in general or American casualties in particular. I have proved my point through various examples, all of which Ben-Ami ignores.
Ben-Ami also knows that I am opposed to Richard Goldstone being barred from attending his own grandson's bar mitzvah, if that is indeed what happened. I do believe that the Goldstone report is scandalously wrong, evilly motivated and dangerous to the peace process. J Street can't even put out an unambiguous statement regarding the Goldstone report, because it is afraid of alienating its extremist base. It satisfies itself with defending the man while gently criticizing the report.
Finally, Ben-Ami has the chutzpah to actually blame me for those on college campuses who disdain Israel. It is typical of J Street to blame Israel and its supporters for everything, without putting any of the responsibility on those who are truly to blame -- Islamic extremists who are the ones killing American troops; the Palestinian leadership, who are the ones refusing to engage in direct negotiations with Israel; anti-Israel campus bigots, who are the ones calling for divestment and boycotts; and J Street leaders, who are the ones endangering Israel's security under the false banner of being pro-Israel.
Geneva, April 25, 2010 - UN Watch welcomes the news, as reported by the New York Times, that Richard Goldstone, the South African judge who presided over the controversial UN Human Rights Council report into Israel’s Operation Cast Lead, will attend his grandson’s bar mitzvah ceremony at a Johannesburg synagogue next week without facing protests outside the event.
I think this is a case of making an assumption and and then looking around for evidence to back up your assumption after the fact. I never heard you make this soldier argument when you debated J Street at AIPAC in front of Haaretz. You were already saying that they should drop pro-Israel from their name. You made up your mind and now your digging for evidence after the fact..
Secondly , the reason you have stated here is hanging by a thread. I love where you say :
"Although Ben-Ami doesn't explicitly make a direct connection between Israeli actions and American casualties, his use of the phrase "critical to...American strategic interests," is a well-known code" "for the argument that there is a connection between Israeli actions and American casualties."
Why are you asking Ben Ami whether he believes your argument ? He used the code words for gods sake , it must be true. You based your entire column on this code word connection.
I have seen far right commentators use the "code word" argument to back up their false assumptions against liberals in the past. They do this essentially when they have no real evidence to back up their pre-decided notions.
What you are doing here is no different !
Dershowitz says of Israel "[I]t is one of the few American allies who has never asked the United States to put its troops in harm's way in defense of Israeli citizens." That may be literally true, but after both Israel and the U.S. had guaranteed the safety of Palestinian civilians in Lebanon, the IDF surrounded Sabra & Shatilla and illuminated them while the Phalange embarked on a wholesale slaughter of innocents. In response, the U.S. sent hundreds of marines to Beirut where many lost their lives when their barracks was bombed.
Talk to the US President:
"I think that the need for peace between Israelis and Palestinians and the Arab states remains as critical as ever ... But what we can make sure of is, is that we are constantly present, constantly engaged, and setting out very clearly to both sides our belief that not only is it in the interests of each party to resolve these conflicts but it’s also in the interest of the United States. It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure."
There's a consensus all the way to the top Dersh. Gates, Petraeus, President Obama.
The Israeli-Arab conflict is endangering US troops and interests in the region.
A fair statement of the truth if there ever was one.
See: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/press-conference-president-nuclear-security-summit