"Think of it this way. If you had a sibling or a child in Congress and he or she asked you if he should just go along with AIPAC or bravely resist (risking campaign donations), what would you say?"A sibling or child? How about a parent or grandparent, considering that you have to be at least 30 to be a Congressperson and the vast majority are over 60? Oh I see, Rosenberg is trying to portray these senators and representatives as innocent little children cruelly maligned by the eeevil AIPAC and need the guidance of wise AIPAC-haters like himself and his readership. I'd say he can't be serious, but I know he totally is. What a maroon. Now let's get to the meat of this article:
"One thing is clear: the "pro-Israel" forces in this country are wrongly labelled. They are not pro-Israel. They are anti-Palestinian. They believe that so long as the Palestinians are losing, Israel is winning. They have it precisely backwards."Sigh. This is hardly unusual for Rosenberg but it doesn't make it any less moronic. First of all, I'm not sure if Mr. Rosenberg is aware of this, but Israel is in conflict with more nations and populations than just the Palestinians, such as Iran, Hezbollah, Syria and Lebanon. Mr. Rosenberg may think the world revolves around the Palestinians, but Israel doesn't and neither do "pro-Israel forces." The reality of what groups like AIPAC think are open to all, just go and look. AIPAC has been in favor of the two-state solution for years now and many of their memos praise better living conditions for Palestinians. It's rather absurd that Rosenberg's status as a former AIPACer is the only thing that grants him his credibility, and yet he appears to have retained no memory at all of what AIPAC is or what it does. I know that there are other more right-wing Zionist groups in America who probably are closer to anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian than AIPAC, but AIPAC is the one that Rosenberg references the most so that is my baseline.
And of course, let's not forget that the ones who truly see this conflict as a zero-sum game are the Palestinians and their supporters. The evidence for their willingness to shoot themselves in the foot is overwhelming, to the point where there is truly no question. The Israelis and their supporters, for the most part, do want to help the Palestinians live in peace as long as their lives are not threatened. That has been my experience, and I feel confident that the historical record will show this to be the case. Rosenberg is not in any position to say the same. Now let's go one of the most ironic paragraphs I've ever seen:
"That is why it is fair to call J Street, Americans for Peace Now and other pro-peace, anti-occupation organizations the two-state lobby while AIPAC, American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, etc, constitute the one-state lobby. "This is what I mean about Rosenberg's own little world. All of his "one state lobby" organizations have endorsed the two station solution and have the temerity to demand the Palestinians actually hold up their end of the bargain. But J Street and Peace Now both have had embarrassing incidents involving their donors who question Israel's right to exist. So if I were him I wouldn't be so proud of the leftist organizations who try to play both sides against the middle. Let's also not forget the embarrassingly Orwellian nature of using terms like "pro-peace" and "anti-occupation" to describe certain organizations, thus implying that other people who aren't MJ Rosenberg are "anti-peace" and "pro-occupation." Just because Rosenberg has been using this cheap and transparent newspeak tactic for months doesn't make it any less absurd.
Finally let's get personal:
"That is sad for people like me who strongly favor a secure independent Israel living alongside a secure independent Palestine."I'm not sure I actually believe this. I don't mind Rosenberg attacking AIPAC or Israel's government when he feels it is being unreasonably intransigent. The problem is that he often goes above and beyond this. In cases like the number of Palestinian prisoners or Jewish donors to Democrats he has no problem at all with simply making things up if it makes Israel and its supporters look bad. When the Goldstone Report was gutted by its own author, Rosenberg reacted with outrage and paranoia. When the Fogel family was killed Rosenberg tried to deflect attention onto Cast Lead, after accusing Israel's leaders of "exploiting" their deaths.
I could go on and on and on, but in the end the only pro-Israel thing Rosenberg has ever said is: "I'm pro-Israel and I'm doing this for Israel's own good." He wouldn't accept that if it was coming from the head of AIPAC or Bibi Netanyahu, and so I don't accept it coming from him. Sorry MJ but the proof is in the pudding.