"We [according to Ms. Scheindlin, people who are in favor of two states] are the real community of people who believe in Israel's existence in the Middle East." The other community believes that Israel's critics hate Israel's existence, not just its policies...Since this narrative involves either annihilation by permanent enemies, or the occupation of those enemies which destroys Israeli society from within, there's a good word for people who think that way: Nihilists."Hm. Funny how with every paragraph we find something new about the way that Ms. Scheindlin thinks. I'm going to set aside for a minute how she attempts to write off people who disagree with her with a one-word insult, as she does that the entire piece, as you will see. What I wanted to talk about instead was this absurd idea that Israel's enemies have a problem with its existence. Gee? I wonder where these non-J Streeters got that idea? Perhaps from reading the Huffington Post? No? Then maybe from the statements of the Arabs themselves? I guess maybe Ms. Scheindlin just expects us to ignore all that.
This paragraph indicates two things to me: First is the racist and condescending view toward the Middle East that only the Jews are responsible for making changes, and that Arabs only react to what is done to them. Even with all the talking about democracy in the Arab world, pundits like Ms. Scheindlin still say that expecting the Palestinians to change their attitude toward Israel is absurd. Which brings me to my second point: The logical fallacy of false choice. Either Israel gives the Arabs want they want now, or wait to be destroyed. The idea of convincing the Arabs to change their genocidal ambitions toward Israel is not even discussed. Maybe Ms. Scheindlin could come up with a clever word for me and all others who ask too many annoying questions.
Ms. Scheindlin continues to follow the usual pattern, such as declaring people who don't like J Street to be "right-wing nut jobs," (classy) but to make a long story short I wanted to take a look at when she attempts to change people's views on Zionism:
"The term 'Jewish and democratic state' served us well in the last century, but now nobody knows what it means. In 2011, I'd like to propose that Zionism means: 'a democratic home for the Jewish people and all other citizens, such as the native-born 20% Palestinian minority.' [She then proceeds to talk about how it is really Israel's policies that are anti-Zionist, and not hers.]"Now, on the surface this doesn't sound too bad for me. Except that it sounds like a contradiction: How can Israel be a state for the Jews if it is also a state for all of its citizens? Like what happens when the 20% don't want Jews to be allowed to move there? Should they just be ignored? Also, how would this be impemented? If Israel is not a Jewish state than can Hatikva still be the national anthem? Can the Star of David stay on the flag? Can Hebrew stay one of the national languages? And when has this form of statehood existed before?
Even though this paragraph is not as controversial as some of the others, it is still quite informative that Ms. Scheindlin is once again trying to rewrite Zionism to serve her political opinions. She is far from the first one though: Sharmine Narwani and Ahmed Moor have both tried. And they are both militantly anti-Israel and anti-Jewish. Coincidence?
We couldn't get to everything but you should check out the rest of the article. It's very informative.