AIPAC apologizes for fundraising off bomb attack

[azurnoir]

The American pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC apologized Wednesday for using a bomb attack in Jerusalem to solicit money from its supporters, news reports said.

Hours after the attack killed a British woman and injured 30, AIPAC circulated a letter reading: "Today, terrorists exploded a package at a Jerusalem bus stop killing one person and injuring 30 others, 15 seriously.

"And in this last week alone, Gaza terrorists have bombarded Israeli towns with more than 50 rockets and mortars," it continued, adding, "And this is why I am writing today to ask for your help."

The Washington Jewish Week reported that AIPAC official Jonathan Missner sent out a second note to donors saying the pro-Israel lobby was "deeply sorry" for soliciting funds in such a manner.

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=372070




AIPAC Fundraises Off Of Jerusalem Bus Attack

This morning, a bomb struck a bus in downtown Jerusalem, killing one person and injuring dozens more. Jerusalem police called it a “terrorist attack,” the first in Jerusalem in seven years. President Obama condemned the attack “in the strongest possible terms.” Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayad have also condemned the attack.

Even before the street had been cleared, however, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee blasted an email out to its supporters in a crass attempt to raise money off the attack:

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/23/aipac-fundraising-jerusalem-attack/


copy of AIPAC's letter at link

[ananda]

1. But will they return the money?

ugh

[bemildred]

2. I thought the way the atrocity against the settler family was used was worse.

But OK.

[azurnoir]

3. Did AIPAC do that too? I thought it was the Israeli government

but your right it is/was worse

[bemildred]

4. I don't think that was AIPAC. nt

[shira]

5. You mean publishing the gruesome photos?

If the point was to gain world sympathy, then it was an idiotic decision as it's done nothing of the sort and has made no significant impact whatsoever.

Israelis (Jews) can't be victims.

If this had happened to Palestinians, different story. Photos and headlines would still be making the news weeks later. Stories about the surviving family members and children, the funeral, criticism of the (Israeli) perpetrators, etc.

Netanyahu and his gov't shouldn't have bothered.

[bemildred]

6. Yes.

If the point was to gain world sympathy, then it was an idiotic decision as it's done nothing of the sort and has made no significant impact whatsoever.

Yes. It doesn't work when people are already desensitized.

Israelis (Jews) can't be victims.

:sarcasm: I take it?

If this had happened to Palestinians, different story. Photos and headlines would still be making the news weeks later. Stories about the surviving family members and children, the funeral, criticism of the (Israeli) perpetrators, etc.

Not where I live. It is true that some Palestinian groups use similar methods, I don't think much of that either. At the least one has to exercise some discrimination. The fact that you and your friends are upset about some particular atrocity does not suspend the need for judgement in what you publish.

Netanyahu and his gov't shouldn't have bothered.

It was a mistake in judgement, so par for the course. It occurred to me that they might do that, publish pictures, but I was still a little bit surprised.

[Ken Burch]

7. Nobody has EVER said "Israeli(Jews)can't be victims"

Sympathy for Palestinians isn't based on hatred of Jews. Would you please just accept that already?

[shira]

8. Then explain this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=347192&mesg_id=347207

Sympathy for Palestinians isn't based on hatred of Jews. Would you please just accept that already?

Yet another strawman. No one is arguing that.

[Ken Burch]

9. That was an argument about the terminology used to discuss the conflict

It was NEVER about saying that "Israelis(Jews)can never be victims". You need to retract that slanderous characterization.

[King_David]

10. maybe you meant libellous ?

http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4795385_libel-differ-slander_.html

Probably neither tho.

[Ken Burch]

11. Fine, libellous.

The link did NOT say that "Israelis(Jews) can never be victims". Shira is ALWAYS trying to bring antisemitism into this debate, even where it obviously doesn't exist(it's bad enough that it exists where it does exist, you know).

[Violet_Crumble]

12. Let's just settle on outright bullshit....

Works for me. If you disagree, please feel free to explain why. What that other poster linked to was definately not what was claimed...

[shira]

13. It's about obfuscation and minimizing acts of terror against Jews...

Too many media reports are:

a) focusing way too much about these people being subhuman settlers who basically had it coming to them (a sick dehumanizing example of blaming the victim).

b) focusing way too much on possible future Israeli retaliation for the terror act (an attempt to deflect from this crime to obsess on anything Israel might possibly do in response).

This deflection and obfuscation is an attempt to further bash Israel and its policies and shift the focus away from the victims.

The very same sources that routinely humanize unfortunate Palestinian victims of IDF operations are the very same sources that operate under a different standard WRT Israeli victims of deliberate terror attacks. Don't believe me? Then answer this one:

If this had happened in reverse, with Israeli settlers slashing the throats or sawing off the heads of Palestinian infants, do you honestly believe the press would handle it the same way - disingenuously "contextualizing" the act by attributing reasonable motive to the perpetrators, dehumanizing the victims as hardline rightwing Islamist extremists, and focusing on future Palestinian retaliatory terror attacks?

Riddle me that one, Ken.

Here's a story you never, or, very rarely if ever see covered in sources that are sympathetic to Palestinian victims of IDF operations...
http://cifwatch.com/2011/03/25/when-was-the-last-time-your-children-had-a-drill-at-school-to-prepare-for-enemy-rocket-fire/

They're not victims, are they?

Why don't these photos show up plastered on the front pages headlining sources you find credible WRT the I/P conflict? Or photos of the recent Jerusalem bombing? The Itamar massacre? They should be frontpage headlined stories at "Leftist" publications like the Guardian and Huffington Post, right? Attacks vs. Palestinians, the Marmara incident, etc.. grab headlines there. Why not these stories, Ken?

Take your time coming up with a thoughtful response.

[Ken Burch]

14. In the American press, you might not even hear of a settler attack on Palestinians

And if you did, I suspect you'd hear a lot of rationalization for it and minimization of it.

[Ken Burch]

15. As to the photos, those kids, while they've been frightenened and regimented

aren't, as yet, victims. I hope they aren't and I oppose the use of the rockets. But the rockets(most of which, although they are a stupid tactic, haven't actually injured anyone)are not comparable to the level of damage inflicted on Palestinian areas and the regimentation and collective restrictions placed on people in those areas.

Israelis, like anyone else, can be victims.

Israelis as a collective, and Israel as a country are NOT the injured party in this.

And the Israeli government is not entitled to special exemptions from accountability and responsibility in its response to the Palestinian resistance. "The right to self-defense" is recognized...but not without limits, not without the right to protest when that right is abused without having your protest mischaracterized as bigotry, and not without any obligation to respect the bounds of common morality decency. No nation, anywhere, should be able to use "self-defense" as a cloak for its actions. It is simply too easy to abuse.

Do you understand the distinction?

[shira]

16. How about the children of Sderot - victims in your view?

They got VERY little international press during the years they were under fire - in comparison to Palestinian victims of IDF operations.

Why?

As to your last paragraph, I agree Israel should defend its civilians legally (and I believe they do so better than any other nation). But do you agree that Israel is held to a very different, unfair standard WRT their right to self-defense? I suspect you don't even though there is no other nation on the planet expected to absorb thousands of rockets and mortars for over 5-7 years from sworn enemies dedicated to their destruction. So tell me, what other nation on this planet would react BETTER towards such aggression than Israel? Name just one please and justify your answer.