Intramural War of Words Raises Question of Who Loves Israel More

[Purveyor]

A growing controversy in Democratic and pro-Israel circles over U.S. policy toward Israel, the security threat posed by Iran and what some journalists and bloggers are writing about these issues has unleashed a bitter feud involving the Center for American Progress (CAP) and charges and counter-charges about who actually has Israel’s best interests at heart.

Terms like “Israel Firster” are being thrown around, along with claims that many members of Congress take their cues on Middle East policy from the Israel lobby. Pro-Israel activists have countered with accusations that those writing such things, many of whom are Jewish, are “anti-Israel”, “anti-Zionist” and “anti-Semitic.”

It seems like almost everyone who writes about Israel and the Middle East has been dragged into the maelstrom.

To most people, this may seem a little like a dog whistle that only the small circle of people whose work focuses on Israel and U.S. Middle East policy can hear. It would be easy to dismiss the fuss as a tempest in a teapot or so much inside baseball. But the fight actually centers on vital issues about what should be the future of U.S. policy toward Israel, and it could affect U.S. relations with the Arab world and our allies.

MORE...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/06/intramural-war-of-words-raises-question-of-who-loves-israel-more.html

[Violet_Crumble]

1. What Jeremy Ben-Ami said was so true...

From the article:

'Jeremy Ben-Ami, a former domestic policy adviser to Bill Clinton, has formed a group called J-Street “to shift the dynamics around Israel so that the most hawkish voices aren’t the only voices heard. To be pro-Israel doesn’t mean being for Israel right or wrong.”

Ben-Ami says many liberals who are concerned about the welfare of Israel feel “the policies of the government of Israel are wrong, bad for the long-term interests of Israel and at times bad for the United States. Rather than argue about the merits of that policy the defenders of the policy look to delegitimize the critics.”'

Had to come back and add how ridiculous it looks when 'supporters' of Israel turn the conflict into a war on language, because clearly the terms and words used are far, far more important than the conflict itself...

[pelsar]

2. no those words have affects...

any peace agreement is going to require the israeli middle to accept and push...when we read words like "carpet bombing for gaza, genocide, war crimes for our reserve soldiers, massacres, and other exaggerations or half truths that are not accurate descriptions of the reality, then your losing the israeli middle and pushing them to the right....and that does have a direct affect upon the conflict.

if those words didn't have affect, they wouldn't be used, but they are used for a reason and they do nothing but make the conflict worse.

[Violet_Crumble]

3. Did you read the article? It was about how Americans refer to each other...

None of those terms you brought up were in the article. It was about pro-Israel groups in America getting all hot under the collar coz someone used a word or term to describe them that offended them. The focus then becomes all about that and not about the conflict...

But when it comes to the words you mentioned, I've seen you use much worse words than that when it comes to Palestinians. Maybe you should have a think about how yr words are making the conflict worse?