The bullies of solidarity (an email battle over an Israel rally at Princeton)

What follows is an exchange of emails at Princeton today over a rally tomorrow at the campus. The exchange is being widely- and anonymously-circulated, so I'm going with it. The first letter is from Princeton Hillel director, Rabbi Julie Roth to the "Jewish community." The second, a response, is from Eldar Shafir, a professor of Psychology, and was sent to a huge list that includes Jews on Princeton's directory.

1. Roth letter

Dear Students, Colleagues, and Friends,

Join me this Saturday night, January 9th [sic; 10th] at 6:30 PM in Palmer Square for a brief public gathering in support of Israel.  The leadership of our local Jewish community, including the Center for Jewish Life, local synagogues, the Jewish Federation, and Jewish Family and Children's Services invite us to join together to show our love for Israel and our prayers for lasting peace in the region.  It will be cold, but we have deliberately chosen to stand outside to make a public statement of solidarity with Israel and to join together as a Jewish community.  I hope to see you there, together with your family and friends.

 Please forward this invitation to others.

 Shabbat Shalom,

Rabbi Julie Roth

2. Shafir letter

Re: Community Gatherings for Israel

This is not the forum for anything resembling political debates, hence my apologies in advance.  But given the peace-loving tone of the message below [Roth letter], it is important to remember that loving someone does not always warrant an unconditional show of support and solidarity.  In fact, it is easy to see many ways in which such support can be misguided and harmful. 

If nothing else, it is at least worth considering what some Israelis, who probably love Israel no less than any one on this list, feel about it  (and noting that this kind of stance is considered legitimate enough in Israel -- as opposed to most of the US -- to appear in the most respectable mainstream press):

 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1051317.html [The link is to one of Gideon Levy's recent articles, The IAF, "Bullies of the Clear Blue Skies."]

This is to say that one could choose to express one's love for Israel by staying away from Palmer Square this Saturday.

 Sincerely,

ES

Comments

[Peter D]

Good, the wall of solidarity with atrocities is finally crumbling (knock on wood). Here is an Israeli Princetonian Aryeh Amihay trying to figure out what the hell is going on.

[citizen]

The piece Peter D (Thanks!) references delineates why the author has no clue
what Israel's ultimate goal is... He offers various goals. One thing that struck me was that if the OP going now against GAZA is motivated by conclusion that Israel cannot allow an equally strong
separate Pal state adjacent--or even one considerably weaker, what does that say about the nature of the Israeli state and its long term future?

[John Lewis-Dickerson]

*****************************************
“There is no humanitarian crisis in the [Gaza] Strip.” - Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, 1 January 2009.

In 1925, Adolf Hitler, writing in Mein Kampf, defined ‘The Big Lie’. He called it a lie so enormous that people “…would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”

[John Lewis-Dickerson]

**************************************
Everyone knows that "Haaretz" is a front for the mullahs in Iran. Anyway, there is no such person as Gideon Levy!

[Jim Haygood]

There was no recorded vote on S. Res. 10, as it was passed by unanimous consent. However, Senator Reid's comment -- 'I suggest the absence of a quorum' -- could imply that there were only a handful of senators present. Then by 'unanimous consent' of the handful present, the quorum call was rescinded. A neat trick indeed.

Senator Reid's remarks are stunning for their shrill, brutal one-sidedness. Reid makes David Harris and Abe Foxman sound quite moderate by comparison. Who knew the deserts of Nevada could breed such passionate zionist sentiments in a mild-mannered gentile undertaker?

By contrast, although he didn't block the resolution, Senator Leahy actually presented a balanced discussion. He pointed out that

'Israel used the cease-fire to pressure Hamas through a blockade that, in the absence of a long-term strategy, has caused extreme hardship for the Palestinian people collectively in Gaza but done nothing to change Hamas's militant policies.

'This latest escalation, with bombs falling and tank artillery striking in heavily populated areas where civilians--more than half of whom are children--have no means of escape, obviously and tangibly is providing ammunition to extremists, inside and outside of Gaza.'

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r111:7:./temp/~r111nPQpsK::

Senator Leahy deserves thanks for demonstrating that he has a conscience, in contrast to the bloodthirsty, unrepentent Harry 'Bomber' Reid.

[American]

I have something to say related to Phil's comments that the worm is turning...that the taboo is off Israel discussions and has broken wide open.

I now agree with him. I had an experience tdoay in my own town that I won't bore everyone with the details, but the dam has broken.

The US-Israel-and US-ISR congressional scheme has hit main street.

Today our local paper, very conserative btw, published a front page picture of the dead children in Gaza and the carnage and the accompanying article condemned both Israel and the US congress.

I saw a man stand up today in a crowded resturant and tell a lady that she,Israel and congress could all go to hell...and he got a standing ovation.

There's change afoot. A lot of people in this congress will be out if they don't catch up with American public opinion.

[LeaNder]

This is really peculiar document( Search: S. Res. 10 ), Jim. So for this bill to pass only three persons are present?

Mark L. Pryor Arkansas as Acting President pro tempore, being appointed by Robert Byrd via a letter the clerk reads?

Reid represents also his partner in the Israel resolution McCornell

and Leahy?

But what exactly is alluded to here?

Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator John Kerry has been open and very forward thinking on this issue. He, along with Senator Lugar, supports this resolution.

[Did this two speak for ten minutes, but no one else? And they then left? Are there ten minutes recorded somewhere?]

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S . Res . 10 submitted earlier by Senators Reid and McConnell.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the resolution by title.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

Is this some kind of ritualized event, nobody bothers to go to anymore?

****************************************

And then the three let the resolution pass? After a few critical words by Leahy? And Kerry used his 10 minutes according to the schedule but is only mentioned in passing and Luger signaled his support.

Strange, ritualized, courtly.

ABSENCE OF A QUORUM

The absence of a quorum occurs when it is officially demonstrated that the number of Members required to conduct business is not present on the House or Senate floor. If a quorum call or roll-call vote demonstrates that a quorum is not present, no further debate or other business may be transacted, except a motion to adjourn or a motion to request or require the attendance of absent Members. In the House, the chair can count the Members who are on the floor to determine if a quorum is present. The presiding officer in the Senate usually does not have this authority.

In the Senate, a quorum call is called off by unanimous consent before all Senators' names have been called. The absence of quorum has not been demonstrated, and the Senate may resume its business.

[LeaNder]

Sorry formatting mistake, still no preview button:

This is really peculiar document( Search: S. Res. 10 ), Jim. So for this bill to pass only three persons are present?

Mark L. Pryor Arkansas as Acting President pro tempore, being appointed by Robert Byrd via a letter the clerk reads?

Reid represents also his partner in the Israel resolution McCornell

and Leahy?

But what exactly is alluded to here?

Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator John Kerry has been open and very forward thinking on this issue. He, along with Senator Lugar, supports this resolution.

Did this two speak for ten minutes, but no one else? And they then left? Are there ten minutes recorded somewhere?

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S . Res . 10 submitted earlier by Senators Reid and McConnell.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the resolution by title.

The legislative clerk read as follows: ...

Is this some kind of ritualized event, nobody bothers to go to anymore?

****************************************

And then the three let the resolution pass? After a few critical words by Leahy? And Kerry used his 10 minutes according to the schedule but is only mentioned in passing and Luger signaled his support.

Strange, ritualized, courtly.

ABSENCE OF A QUORUM

The absence of a quorum occurs when it is officially demonstrated that the number of Members required to conduct business is not present on the House or Senate floor. If a quorum call or roll-call vote demonstrates that a quorum is not present, no further debate or other business may be transacted, except a motion to adjourn or a motion to request or require the attendance of absent Members. In the House, the chair can count the Members who are on the floor to determine if a quorum is present. The presiding officer in the Senate usually does not have this authority.

In the Senate, a quorum call is called off by unanimous consent before all Senators' names have been called. The absence of quorum has not been demonstrated, and the Senate may resume its business.

[Alan]

American,

I would be very interested in the details of the episode in your town you refer to.

If you find the time, please share them with us.

Thank you.

[citizen]

Me too.