<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
"The liberal <span class="keyword1">doth</span> <span
class="keyword2">protest</span> <span class="keyword3">too</span>
<span class="keyword4">much</span>, methinks..."<br>
<br>
Aren't attempts to co-opt principled critics of the US/Israeli
crimes in the Mideast obvious?<br>
<br>
It is remarkable that Obama got away with co-opting anti-war
sentiment in the last presidential election, as Robert Kennedy
attempted to do long ago with the anti-Vietnam war movement. (Obama
had paid attention to that earlier movement, as his book shows.) <br>
<br>
But isn't it blindingly obvious that J Street exists to do the same
thing in regard to American liberals' view of Israel?<br>
<br>
It's practically a mathematical certainty that the AIPAC bad-cop
would generate the J-Street good-cop. Why is there any surprise?<br>
<br>
It's important to remember that in good-cop/bad-cop scenarios, it's
the bad cop who's the honest one. <br>
<br>
<br>
On 3/4/11 12:50 PM, Robert Naiman wrote:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> ...I'm against a sectarian,
totalizing, ultra-left <br>
> Spartacist-style rhetoric against J Street that portrays it
as an<br>
> evil cabal that is worse than AIPAC, and that claims that a
broad<br>
> assault on J Street ought to be at the center of left
critique...<br>
</span><br>
</body>
</html>