I honestly don’t know where to begin. It’s long been obvious that the anti-Israel Jewish left doesn’t genuinely try to persuade its followers, as much as it gives them excuses for pretending that they’ve been persuaded. During J Street’s recent wave of scandals, that got argumentatively cashed out in one of two ways.
Not to give away the ending, but both make appearances in J Street’s new Myths & Facts pushback to the Daniel Levy transcript that I posted earlier this week, where he said that “the creation of Israel” was “an act that was wrong.” In response to J Street’s explicit denial of the quote, Daniel Halper just posted a crystal-clear video of Levy’s remarks. It matches the transcript word for word. Halper’s evaluation of the pushback, part of his more brutal unpacking of the video: “patently false.”
Back to J Street’s broader denial strategies, which are getting less sophisticated with every new revelation. Their most basic move has been to deny reality as long as possible and then – when that stops working – to simply pretend that they never said what they said. This is how they handled the Soros funding scandal, as illustrated in their Myths & Facts section on the issue. First paragraph: “J Street has always said…” Second paragraph: “J Street has also always said…” Etc. This is just a strategy of omission. To debunk the accusation that they denied their Soros funding, they just never mention all those times when they denied their Soros funding.
J Street’s other move has been to go all-in on denial, even while – amazingly, openly, brazenly – acknowledging the evidence that flat out disproves what they’re saying. This was their approach to the Goldstone revelations, per Ben-Ami’s comments to the Washington Times. He began by insisting that J Street had nothing to with “facilitating” Goldstone’s DC visit, then he outlined how J Street “reached out to a handful of congressional staff to inquire whether members would be interested in seeing Judge Goldstone” – which is, of course, what the word “facilitate” means. This is a strategy of I honestly don’t know what. Doublethink? Shamelessness? Relying on the audience to be illiterate?
For completion’s sake it’s probably also worth mentioning a third move, where J Street reflexively smears all critics as right-wing neoconservative warmongers or something. That’s how they ended up castigating leftist leading light Alan Dershowitz for being a Limbaughesque Palinista. Now this one isn’t strictly an argumentative tactic, but more like just something that’s kind of stupid. It’s such a part of their repertoire, though – and it plays such a crucial role in how the anti-Israel Jewish left insulates its echo chamber – that it would be a shame to leave it out.
Fast forward to the Daniel Levy transcript I posted, from when he was sharing his feelings with the audience at last May’s Fifth Al Jazeera Forum:
One can be a utilitarian two-stater, in other words think that the practical pragmatic way forward is two states. This is my understanding of the current Hamas position. One can be an ideological two-stater, someone who believes in exclusively the Palestinian self-determination and in Zionism; I don’t believe that it’s impossible to have a progressive Zionism. Or one can be a one-stater. But in either of those outcomes we’re going to live next door to each other or in a one state disposition. And that means wrapping one’s head around the humanity of both sides. I believe the way Jewish history was in 1948 excused – for me, it was good enough for me – an act that was wrong. I don’t expect Palestinians to think that. I have no reason – there’s no reason a Palestinian should think there was justice in the creation of Israel.
And now J Street’s response, posted last night and charmingly labeled “Myth: Far right-wing blogs have accused ‘J Street co-founder’ of saying Israel’s creation was an ‘act that was wrong.’” After a brief bio where we learn that Levy has failed to internalize the reality of Palestinian intransigence despite years of deeply personal diplomatic failures – I’m paraphrasing a little – we get this:
Daniel’s remarks have been misreported. In an answer to a question on a panel he appeared on in Doha, Qatar, Daniel argued in favor of progressive Zionism. He did not call Israel’s creation “an act that was wrong.” He believes that the events of the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem included acts that were wrong, but that could be excused for him by the particular and unique moment in Jewish history that we were living through in 1948: “I believe that where Jewish history was in 1948 excused, for me – it was good enough for me – an act that was wrong.”
Daniel went on to say that he sees no reason why Palestinians would agree with his response to that history, “I don’t expect Palestinians to think that.”
You almost have to admire the sheer, utter nerve it takes to roll something like this. The question at hand is whether Mere Rhetoric and other blogs “misreported” that Levy was talking about “the creation of Israel.” J Street transcribes the entirety of his statement precisely until the part where he talks about “the creation of Israel.” And then they declare that he didn’t talk about “the creation of Israel.” QED.
It’s just amazing. Also right in line with how they handled the Soros scandal, where they ostensibly debunked cover up accusations by not mentioning all their cover ups. But also totally amazing.
And yet why be satisfied with one denial strategy when you can have two? After they cropped Levy’s remarks in the text, then they linked to a 130 minute Al Jazeera video of his panel. And that video does have his full quote, which moves their denial out of Soros “omission” territory and into the brazen Goldstone denial realm where they have to hope their audience can’t see or hear things. In fairness to them, there’s at least a chance they never intended anyone to sit through the first 127 minutes of the Arabic language tape to find the clip (much easier to just take J Street’s transcript at face value!)
There’s some other petty stuff that could be included. Levy didn’t “argue in favor of progressive Zionism” as much as he tersely mentioned how there’s an imaginary kind of Zionism in his mind that would ideologically justify a Jewish State. The way J Street sets up the “myth” makes it sound like they’re denying that anyone ever made the accusation in the first place. There’s a passage that tries to imply that Levy’s a periphery “policy consultant” who was informally “part of the original group that conceived of J Street,” even though he was introduced at the Al Jazeera Forum as a J Street representative, is on J Street’s board of advisers, and describes himself in his bio as “a founder of the J Street organization.” And of course the “far right-wing blog” thing kind of grates given Mere Rhetoric’s support for the disengagement in 2004-2005, calls for arresting religious Jewish rioters in 2006, and admiration for Shimon Peres throughout the blog’s existence. But these are all quibbles.
The real point is: can you believe these tools?
Photo:
* The Middle East’s View Of Obama [CBS News]
References:
* Pro-Carter Shill MJ Rosenberg: Why Aren’t Israelis More Excited About How Obama Is Going To Pressure Them? [Mere Rhetoric]
* You Need A Scorecard To Track The J Street Deceptions (Updated) [Daled Amos]
* Myths and Facts About J Street [JStreet.org]
* J Street Co-Founder Daniel Levy: Israel’s Creation “An Act That Was Wrong” [Mere Rhetoric]
* [Halper / Weekly Standard]
* Israel lobby aided Hill visits for U.N. report author [Birnbaum and Lake / Wash Times]
* J Street’s McCarthyism [Dershowitz / JPost]
* Confirmed: Anti-Israel Jewish Groups Scapegoat Israel For Obama’s Manufactured Crisis [Mere Rhetoric]
* J Street Co-Founder Daniel Levy: Israel’s Creation “An Act That Was Wrong” [Mere Rhetoric]
* Daniel Levy [New America Foundation]
* In Support Of Disengagement [Mere Rhetoric]
* Haredis In Jerusalem Need To Learn How To Effing Behave Themselves [Mere Rhetoric]
* Peres For President [Mere Rhetoric]
Related Mere Rhetoric Categories:
* Jewish Politics
* Anti-Israel Diplomacy
* Israeli-Arab Peace Process
