wasp? whoa. what if someone called you a k*ke? not cool, right?

It’s a no-brainer why an Arab prominent in the American-Arab community supports a group that wants to pressure Israel into unilateral concessions for the sake of “peace,” and it’s not surprising that she would dismiss the opposition’s substantive objectives — forced concessions that are not reciprocated will bring hostility and war — as so much pique at not controlling the agenda (more evasive ad hominem).

What’s not understandable (unless you accept the honor-shame explanation), is why Arabs and Muslims haven’t formed an A-Street, militating for Arab/Muslim/Palestinian concessions aimed at making peace more likely?

Instead you have given us a perfectly pitched discourse about how my supporting Israelis working for peace is my democratic right and who are you to question my motives. Well I do question them. If you want peace, do what the Israelis and Jews do: criticize your own people, demand that they back down from their crazy, hardline positions, denounce immature and unjustified rioting on Haram al Sharif as harmful to the process, and demand that they recognize Israel as a Jewish state just as every Arab state is a Muslim state (except, for the time being, Lebanon).

Or are you afraid that the opposition to your Lobby group will not be as mild as that — for which you show contempt — of people like Lenny David, who merely argue with those he opposes. Or are you afraid you could never get more than a dozen people to openly support you? Or has it not even occurred to you that this is how to help peace?

The US in actuality has plenty of influence on the Palestinians and is in point of fact their largest financial backer. there are arab american organizations who advocate what Johnchen suggests but they have never been as effective nor had the political savvy of AIPAC. It is not for lack of trying. They have made progress over the years but are still not a major force in american politics.

As for the Foreign Agents Registration Act and AIPAC, the issue has been brought up several times over the last several decades and each time it has been determined that they do not meet any of the criteria for Agent of a Foreign Government. They know the law well and will not be so foolish as to run afoul of it.

Einstein was very much a zionist. In fact he bequeathed a massive fortune and the rights to most of his writings to Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and was a long time zionist activist. People who think he was antizionist usually cite a fragment of a quote taken out of context.

With regards to Freeda2's claims: I'm coming to this dialogue a little late, so pardon the tardiness of this response. But Freeda2's statements about Jewish control of the media -- which were offered up as an explanation for the lack of US coverage of Arab-American peace groups -- are utterly outrageous and merit a response. This FP essay by Abou-Chedid was written as a response to an individual who insinuated that the ethno-racial identities of J Street supporters were ipso facto proof of the group's lack of sincerity with regards its pro-Israel bona fides. Now we learn that the ethno-racial identities of *some* members of the U.S. media should be taken as proof of the U.S. media's general failure to cover these groups. (Of course, Freeda2 offers insinuations and suggestions, but offers us no examples to buttress her claims.)

Freeda2: Shame on you! Especially considering that, based on the tone of your comments, it almost sounds as if you're Ms. Abou-Chedid herself. If you are indeed the author of this article, you seem not to have absorbed the true spirit of the remarks that you so eloquently purport to believe in.

Before criticizing Jews for having a State of their own, albeit tolerant of other religions and their public worship, one might with profit consider the many Arab states which discriminate against non-Muslims and even ban or persecute Christian, Jewish, Bahai and other public worship. One might also, with profit, note that Arabs have about 20 percent of the votes in the Israeli Knesset; much more than enough to make them decisive in closely voted matters. In how many Arab states do Jews have similar representation?

A State is not racial or racist simply because it honors its ethnic history. It is when it discriminates against those of other ethnicities in law or governance. Thus Israel is not racist; most Islamic States are.

Those who get excited about Israel's minor imperfections might usefully direct their energies instead to States with more massive discrimination and racist/sexist behavior.

By the way, I should have ignored the troll I replied to, since it, too, has nothing to do with the accusations against CAIR; the subject of this thread.

For "CAIR" just above, read "J Street".

"America was once their country. They sense they are losing it. And they are right."
Zionist liberals can mock Pat Buchanan but they have the same concerns regarding Israel.

I don't defend an ethnic German state, or an ethnic French one. And I don't defend the BNP.
Israel calls itself modern. Is it willing to be? If it isn't then we have to accept that, but we don't have to accept hypocrisy.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/buchanan_white_americans_are_losing_their_country.php

Interesting turn of the facts, from a fellow Jewish person who ought to know better then the anti-Israel propaganda you cite. Israel does not seek racial separatism. Indeed Israelis come from many different "races" in the modern conception, including white, Black, Hispanic and even Asian. In fact, the Mizrahi Jews--Jews from the Arab countries--were, until the concept became part of the conflict, historically considered by themselves and others, Arabs of the Jewish faith. Israel also annually grants asylum to a not insignificant number of Arabs because they fear for their safety in Arab countries--usually women, homosexuals and people with various birth defects or disabilities, but also some Arabs who support Israel.

Israel is about 1/5 Arab (not really a race separate from the majority Jews, but again, your comment was just as silly) and while it would likely seek to swap some Jewish communities bordering the "green line" for some Arab communities bordering the "green line," to avoid an impossible and unaffordable evacuation of large cities, the proportion of Israelis who consider themselves Palestinian-Arabs (or Arab-Israelis) would not really change even under such a land-swap.

Rather, it is the Palestinians who insist that no Jews may live in Palestine. Sure, a few leaders have come forth to insist Jews would be welcome in Palestine, but the unmistakeable majority insist Palestine must be free of all Jews. It is, you recognize, a death penalty offense to sell land in Palestine to Jews--though they are usually shot before they are tried (Salem?). Well, actually that law is of more recent vintage, as large swaths of the urban areas of the WB were purchased by Jews at least a hundred years ago but often quite a bit further back. Anyhow, there are many settlers (not a majority, but I don't know exactly how many) who would prefer to live in their homes, even if the political control of that area is transfered over to Arab control. That remains highly unlikely, if for no other reason then neither the PA nor Israel would be able to protect them.

"Israel does not support racial separatism--it fights it"
"Israel does not seek racial separatism. Indeed Israelis come from many different 'races' "
"Israel is about 1/5 Arab (not really a race separate from the majority Jews"

You're confusing yourself more than you are me.
As Livni has said the point of the two state solution is that the Palestinians, Muslim ad Christian would want to leave. Avnery has said the Jews want to live alone. I'm sure plenty of Germans feel the same way about their country, but I don't have much sympathy. And I have less for immigrants to the middle east, even returning after 2000 years, who've kicked the locals off their land. After all the Palestinians are descendants of those who never left.

Throwing three quarters of a million Germans out of the Rhineland makes better moral sense.
Stop lying to yourself first, then we'll talk.

>>After all the Palestinians are descendants of those who never left.

Apart from the implication that the Palestinians are the descendants of the Jews who lived there until expelled by Rome and/or killed by the Muslim invaders, this claim is the central falsehood underlying the whole Israel-Palestine problem. The evidence is very strong that the territory that is now Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank were largely depopulated by the Seventeenth Century and remained that way until the Zionist immigration began. Credible estimates of the total population in the mid-Nineteenth Century are around a quarter million. Contrary to the "Palestinian narrative" there was no flourishing Palestinian national entity or culture present in the land.

The Ottoman overlords understood that the population vaccuum there posed a strategic threat to them and thus welcomed not just the Jews but other ethnic groups as well, anything to get the population up. The Jews brought with them both capital and skills and this led to economic growth which eventually served as a magnet for Arab and Turkic groups that came to settle there. The Ottomans even transferred thousands of Bosnians there after they lost Bosnia to Austria-Hungary.

The Palestinian claim is thus that their immigrants have a greater right to live in this country than do Jewish immigrants, a view that is unabashedly racist.

"Apart from the implication that the Palestinians are the descendants of the Jews who lived there until expelled by Rome"
There was no mass expulsion and the Palestinians are descendants of earlier inhabitants (including Jews):
themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2007/07/no-rivkele-there-wasnt-roman-exile-of.html
And again:
mondediplo.com/2008/09/07israel
And again,
jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1249418656478&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Ben Gurion ""The greater majority and main structures of the Muslim Falahin in Western Erez Israel [modern Israel, West Bank, and Gaza Strip] present to us one racial strand and a whole ethnic unit, and there is no doubt that much Jewish blood flows in their veins -- the blood of those Jewish farmers, "lay persons," who chose in the travesty of times to abandon their faith in order to remain on their land."
-
You write: "The evidence is very strong that the territory that is now Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank were largely depopulated by the Seventeenth Century and remained that way until the Zionist immigration began."

My response:
"A land with no people is for a people with no land". The man who came up with that line was not referring to Palestine. He was opposed to the founding of the Jewish state there because it was too populated and he predicted trouble.
Your other "facts" are similar, including your numbers.

As I said to the previous commentator, stop lying to yourself and to us.

AlanFJR's facts are correct but unfortunately he has been sucked in by the diversion created by those unable to answer the charges against J Street, the subject of this thread. It isn't about AIPAC but about J Street. Let's keep our eye on the ball here.

We often give our congressmen a hard time for "Congressional Junkets" but on foreign policy issues they actually do need to see the areas they legislate on. These are not golf trips to Bermuda, it is an educational trip. A "political contribution" would be a $2,300 or $4,600 check to their reelection campaign--AIPAC does not contribute to candidates.

Don't know anything the prosecutors, but if they did, he wouldn't be able to be involved in that same case for the opposite side. He would have to be walled off from the defense if he was involved in the prosecution.

Although Choi writes with outrage, his underlying facts are correct.