Saturday, July 31, 2010
This story of the National Jewish Democratic Council's attack on the Emergency Committee for Israel is a must-read. NJDC's David Harris first calls J Street "bi-partisan," then backs off that silly claim. The fact is they don't know what to do, since they can't exactly attack ECI for making Israel support a partisan issue when they've never said a thing about J Street. In fact, J Street is the highest profile partisan "pro-Israel" Jewish group we remember ever seeing. To compare them to ECI is unfair, since ECI is actually putting actual Israel support at the forefront of their decision making, while J Street is simply supporting Joe Sestak because he's on the left and willing to attack Israel from that ground.
Now I'm confused because Jpost has David Harris, Executive Director, American Jewish Committee (AJC) write posts for their Blog Central.
So who's this other David Harris?
Same name, different people. One David Harris runs AJC. The other runs the NJDC.
There's the (mostly) good David Harris, and the David Harris with the goatee who stepped out of the transporter just moments after AJC David Harris materialized.
The Good David Harris has an Evil Twin with a halal goatee.
Thanks for the info.
For one moment I thought it was another case of: "First I was for it before I was against it!"
:-)
Maybe the one with the halal goatee had better make himself scarce around Ramadan.
Here's a link to an NGO Monitor exposure of another of those "do-good" just like Jstreet organizations:
NIF Whistleblower Exposes NIF´s Role in Demonization
Maariv's Ben-Dror Yemini got into the act and put out into the public arena the expression of extremism against Israel at an NIF seminar.
It's easy to get them confused now that the good David Harris has started acting like his evil twin.
David Harris's article at Huffpo Monday (Build the Cordoba Center?) about the Ground Zero mosque gets it profoundly wrong.
Or does he. The two preconditions he says must be satisfied never will be met, even if it were legally possible to demand it of the mosque's sponsors. So maybe he's talking out of both sides of his mouth. It sounds like he's saying yes. But his support is conditional, and he knows the terms won't be fulfilled. Maybe he's really saying no while trying to get some props from his liberal base.
Why go through the double-talk charade for the sake of appearances? Why not just say no? Anyone with half a brain who knows what the reference to Cordoba means should understand what the mosque, in fact, is all about. It's a wimpy cop-out.
The Cordoba Institute—Yeah, yeah. So they changed their name in response to the uproard. BFD—plans to dedicate their vile, triumphalist Ground Zero mosque on Sept. 11 next year, i.e., on the tenth anniversary of 9/11. Stopping the mosque will be much harder. The Landmarks Preservation Commission's decision can't be appealed. Maybe some kind of lawsuit.
It's probably a futile gesture, but One Jerusalem is organizing a petition to send to Mayor Bloomberg: Ground Zero Petition: Stop the Ground Zero Mosque!