Our Children Are The Guarantors

Defending Zionism from its detractors. Anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism. Let the other side apologize for a change.

Friday, May 04, 2007

A Bed of Your Own Making

It all started out for me from a post on Elder of Ziyon, on how Uri Avnery was berated by his fellow “progressives” for not being anti-Israel enough. In amazing synchronicity (ZionistJungster believes this is co-ordinated from the One On High rather than being a natural phenomenon, but the term is still valid), three such Jews have been lately under attack for the same reason: Avnery as I said, “rabbi” Michael Lerner and blogger Richard Silverstein. By no means do I gloat; there is in me this bittersweet feeling of how people who (as evidenced by their stances that won such criticism) still have that Jewish point shining within, but are now being confronted with a monster of their own making, more Frankensteinian than they could ever have imagined.

Avnery’s article The Bed of Sodom, Lerner’s warning that the insistence on the one-state solution would actually perpetuate the status quo and Silverstein’s tiff with a commenter who thinks the very founding of the state of Israel in 1948 was a crime that should be punished—all are manifestations of Jews who are not beyond the pale. Unlike some of their Jewish detractors—Roger Tucker and Ilan Pappe, for example—they still know the bitter truth, that the issues of 1947–9, as opposed to that of 1967, form an Israeli Jewish concensus, and that the insistence on those issues would do nothing but drive an otherwise “progressive” Jew “into the arms of the extreme Right” (to quote Avnery’s article). While Tucker, Gilad Atzmon, Pappe and the non-Jewish left-wing anti-Zionists are evil-hearted as well as wrong-headed, Avnery, Lerner and Silverstein are just wrong-headed, their hearts still throbbing with the knowledge of how the Israeli Jewish public thinks and feels.

Elder of Ziyon brings the links to the responses to Avnery. “Vituperative and borderline psychotic” (Elder’s words on them) is apt, except for Spritzler’s article, which is in a class by itself. I tried to read it without falling asleep—the effort to keep my eyelids apart was just excruciating. Paragraph after paragraph of squeezing the Israel/“Palestine” conflict into the Marxist, class-struggle Bed of Sodom, all with a disconnect from reality that is the best proof I could ask of the proposition that Marxism is irrelevant to the real world in front of us. Tucker’s response is an exercise in necromancy, conjuring the ghosts of 70 years ago with sentences like this:

This is not a sideshow. The Zionist disease drives the American lust for empire that imperils the whole world, both its people and the planet itself.

It is tempting to wave it away as an extremist opinion. Such temptation should be resisted: it is the unspoken thought of very many in the West that the entire threat of Islamic terrorism is all because of Israel. Europe especially is now back to drinking its 1938 vintage wine, and the fact that this wine is contained in the shiny, brand new bottle of anti-Zionism makes no real-world difference. Tucker closes with this sentence:

Sometimes the truth hurts, as in an operation to remove a cancer. But it is the way to health. Some people say to me “But you want to wipe Israel off the map.” My answer is always the same. “Please, someone, just give me the eraser.”

Complete synchronism with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Is it any wonder Avnery wrote his article? If Israeli Jews only knew this was the face (or soon going to be) of the “Peace Left”, Moshe Feiglin would now be Prime Minister.

Academic quisling Ilan Pappe, who, just like Azmi Bisharah, spat into the well from which he had drunk and then complained the water no longer left a good taste in his mouth (“forced” to leave the University of Haifa because of the shunning he got after calling for the boycott of his own university—oh, the inhumanity!), responds (on the atrocity-site Electronic Intifada, where else?), saying the one-state solution is necessary because the two-state solution was tried and failed for so many times. He is factually right about that, but he neglects to mention who made it fail, both the first time in 1947 and the second time from 1993 to this day. Of the entire state of Israel, and Avnery’s truthful mention that the Israeli Jewish public insists on being the majority in it, he has this to say:

Avnery is right when he asserts that ‘there is no doubt that 99.99 percent of Jewish Israelis want the State of Israel to exist as a state with a robust Jewish majority, whatever its borders’. A successful boycott campaign will not change this position in a day, but will send a clear message to this public that these positions are racist and unacceptable in the 21st century. Without the cultural and economical oxygen lines the West provides to Israel, it would be difficult for the silent majority there to continue and believe that it is possible both to be a racist and a legitimate state in the eyes of the world. They would have to choose, and hopefully like De Klerk they will make the right decision.

For a man who had lived in Israel for a length of time, Pappe’s disconnect with its reality is astounding. If you have lived in this country for some time, you know the call of “alte zachen” and the stark reality behind it. Yiddish for “old things”, it was the town-seller’s call in the East European Disapora. In Israel, it was carried over with the comical effect that most such sellers are Arabs. Toward noon you can hear it from the window in any major Israeli city: “alte zachen” blaring out from a loudspeaker in an Arabic accent. Their cars roam freely in the streets, and sometimes (but much less so than in the past, mainly because of words that raise certain doubts) the Israeli Jews buy their wares. No such equivalent exists on the true apartheid side of the “Apartheid Wall”: the fate of any Jew who should be so careless as to wander there by mistake is well-known (and for the wise, a hint suffices). The Israeli Jews know, in fact it looks as if even Avnery knows, why the Jewish majority must stay so—and it has nothing to do with racism. More later.

Avnery, bad as he may be (because of his wrong views—the mind), knows this truth. Pappe, if he knows it, chooses to ignore it, for so eaten by his hatred for Zionism is he (the heart). Avnery can be dialogued with; for Pappe, prayer is the only thing that could possibly work a change.

Lerner got a response by Josh Ruebner and Leslie Cagan. The sentences with which their response could be summarized are the following:

We are concerned that a leader of a progressive spiritual movement would choose to interpret these broadly supported political demands as a call for the “dissolution of the State of Israel”. It is particularly ironic because powerful organizations on the pro-Israeli right—those organizations which actually are working to perpetuate Israel’s military occupation—do not even go so far in their condemnations of this mobilization. For example, the “Anti-Defamation League” states only that they are concerned that we will not provide a “balanced view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” during the mobilization. Why you feel the need to outdo the ADL in your condemnation of our effort is beyond our understanding. [Emphasis original. —ZY]

Or in other words: fall back into the party line, heretic! In their response, Ruebner and Cagan say what the goals are. Among them is: “[…] and the full implementation of all relevant UN resolutions”. This means, in all likelihood, also the UN General Assembly Resolution 194, which calls for Israel to permit all the “Palestinian refugees” to return to where they were before 1947. And, since that would mean making the Jews a minority in their own land, and since we know how life for Jews under Islamic rule goes, Lerner’s contention that the “Peace Left” is becoming united around the “dissolution of the State of Israel” is nothing but a statement of fact. But this should never be allowed to stand in the way of proposed reality-based solution to this conflict.

Finally, Richard Silverstein, in his post Olmert Must Go (I agree with the title…), has an old friend, Amin Nusseibeh, come for a visit. Nusseibeh’s comments have not changed in substance, only gotten more virulent in form. He begins:

It is no surprise that real estate lawyers cannot lead war. However, the incompetence of Ormert is symptomatic of a leader of a nation built on ethnic cleansing, with no history of its own,only myths, and defended by a holocaust forcefield. The world is waiting for a leader who will recognize that “israel” is a failed experiment which threatens the peace of the world. Only then can the Jews exercise their right of return and we can exercise ours.

Richard replies:

Amin’s comment is full of sloganeering and light on insight. Israel is NOT a failed experiment any more than Palestinian nationalism is. Israeli hardliners talk about Palestinians in precisely the same dismissive, hateful tones that Amin uses. It’s wrong on both counts.

Amin responds with a hefty dose of Leftspeak:

What is hateful about my comments? I am merely speaking truth to power. A generation ago, our cause was under the radar screen, but today, the cause of the Palestinians is the leading human rights issue of its time. The legitimacy of the zionist entity is now a topic for polite conversation. Even Jews like Tony Judt, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein and Richard Cohen admit that the concept of Jewish nationality is a mistake that threatens world peace. One day, the leaders of Israel will be tried in a symbolic place like Nuremberg, and true progresives who are not blinded by tribal loyalty will hand ALL of Palestine back to its legitimate owners

Of Richard’s response to that, here is what held my interest most:

When those Israelis are tried they will be sitting in the dock with Khaled Meshal, Hassan Nasrallah and all others who ordered terror attacks against Israeli civilians.

And I see that your wish to hand all of Palestine back to its “legitimate owners” has nothing to do with “tribal loyalty” does it?

Nusseibeh’s last comment so far (I skipped one) is perhaps the most indicative of them all:

Sorry, Tutu agrees with me
see quote below “People are scared in this country [the US], to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful - very powerful. Well, so what? For goodness sake, this is God’s world! We live in a moral universe. The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust.”

The occupation did not begin in 1967, it began in 1948, and until it is reversed, there will be no peace. You can ban me if you want, but we are not so far apart. All you have to do is acknowledge that the concept of a Jewish state is racist and you can join the tent of progressives internationally [Emphasis mine. —ZY]

To the part I emphasized, Silverstein replies thus:

What, are you the circus ringmaster in this progressive tent? You get to decide who’s kosher & who’s not? Heaven forfend. I will never share a tent or anything else with you (except unfortunately this comment thread).

From the standpoint of principles, I’m with Silverstein on that one. But, the heart that is in the right place is disserviced by a mind that has as yet failed to perceive the awful reality.

The position that Avnery, Lerner and Silverstein are protesting is either mainstream (in the Muslim world it most surely is) or in the speedy process of becoming so. Positions that, just a little over a decade ago, would cause their originator to be shunned from polite society are now bon-ton; in fact, the three’s fellow Leftists are ready to shun them for keeping to the position that Zionism is legitimate. And it is bolstered by quoting Jews who enlisted to the cause. “No, I’m not an anti-Semite! Moshe Cohen says that, and he’s a Jew, therefore my position can’t be considered anti-Semitic”. At the end of all these years of service of a bad cause, this is the rotten fruit. Frankenstein can now finally see he has created a monster. Now the decision is his, whether to pull the plug on that whole monster or to try, against all odds, to make a human being out of that monster. Whichever they choose, the screws on the side of the neck of the “Peace Left” cannot be denied. The Maharal of Prague knew when to do away with his Golem; can the left-wing, peacenik Jews muster the strength to do the same?

The non-Jewish diarists on Daily Kos are already doing some (not much, but still…) soul-searching over the fact that their website has become a venue for sentiments from darker times. Let the Jewish Leftists just spare a little—really a little—thought to the fact that their cause is now the platform, the welcoming home, for thoughts, feelings and desires that were commonplace 70 years ago.

Carter’s Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid and Hitler’s Mein Kampf in Arabic on the same window of a bookstore in Amman, Jordan. Hat tip: Solomonia. What does it say that those two books are together? Think about it.

Finally, let me quote and comment on something from Avnery’s article:

There is no doubt that the real disease is not the 40-year long occupation. The occupation is a symptom of a more profound disease, which is connected with the official ideology of the state. The aim of ethnic cleansing and the establishment of a Jewish State from the sea to the river is dear to the hearts of many Israelis, and perhaps Rabbi Meir Kahane was right when he asserted that this is everybody's unspoken desire.

This is where Avnery and his ilk get me mad again. This borders on blood libel. It’s a disconnect from the reality of life in Israel again: I know, because I was there, that that was neither “dear to the hearts” nor “everybody’s unspoken desire” for at the very least the years 1992–2000. Rabin was elected in a landslide in 1992 because the majority believed in a two-state solution, and it held out, despite many obstacles, until October 2000—until Arafat turned down Barak’s concessions with violence, and the riots over the Al Aksa mosque spread over the Arabs of Israel (i.e. within the 1949 Armistice Line) as well.

I cannot say whether now, in May 2007, Kahane’s assertion is already true; what I do know for certain, however, is that now, in proportion to the acceptability of saying the entire state of Israel, including that which is within the 1949 Armistice Line, is a mistake that should be corrected, a crime that should be punished (and so on), the acceptability of Kahane’s vision has risen among the Jews of Israel. As it was once shameful to call Israel “a racist state to the very core” but now it is not so, so it was once shameful to advocate the expulsion of all the Muslims (or Arabs—I for one hope the non-Muslim Arabs will be able to stay, but their siding with the Muslim cause may make that impossible) but now is much less so. The recent documents of Israeli Arabs demanding to do away with the Jewish character of the state, and calling Zionism “a colonial enterprise from the start”, are trying the patience of even the Leftists here. Of the document, “The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel”, Meretz leader Elazar Granot said, “I read it and boiled with rage”. And Meretz is one of the more left-wing of the Israeli Left parties!

I, former Leftist peacenik, never imagined I would come to where I am now. I had thought, as most did then, Kahane’s vision indefensible. It certainly is when construed in the framework of “racism”. But now we can see how race, just like Spritzler’s notions of class struggle, has become of such little relevance, and the question of culture has come to the fore as the major issue of our day.

Imagine that a group of cannibals immigrated to your neighborhood. They have customs of which the lips shudder to speak. You fear for the safety of your own as well. What do you do? You give them the choice: to abandon the practice of cannibalism, or to leave your neighborhood. Is it not sensible? Is it not the thing to do? Of course it is. But there are those, bien-pensants, do-gooders, bleeding hearts, who in their open-mindedness opt to ignore the “dietary habits” of the immigrants, instead focusing on their skin color. You try to protest, “It has nothing to do with skin color, I’d take the same steps if their skins were as white as snow; it’s about the fact that they eat other humans!” But to no avail: “Racist! Imperialist! Colonialist! Oppressor!”, and all the rest. You’re not advocating the genocide of those immigrants, just acts of forcing them to get right with the rest of humanity. No, no good: “How dare you decide what’s good for others!” Never mind that this is not a question of artistic taste, it’s a real-world, factual issue in which lives are at stake.

2,000 suspected jihadists monitored by Britain’s MI5, and growing. How high the cost, and how low, in comparison, what the states get in return! Any realistic cost/value analysis would reach an unequivocal verdict: they’re not worth all this trouble, all these expenses. But no. “Racism!” Again and again. Never mind that (at least on paper) Islam transcends color. Let them blow up our office towers and subway trains (G-d forbid), just to prove we’re not racists. Never mind that it’s about culture and ideology—not what people are (which is unchangeable) but what they believe and, accordingly, do.

The voices of “compassion” will rage strongly, of course. But they can easily be shown to be misguided:

Photo: Child holding placard saying, "Palestinian children deserve peace as well"
From the demonstration at the Jimmy Carter appearance in Berkeley, by zombie.

“Peace”, they say? “Peace”?! That child, or the ones he represents, does not even have bread, and you say he should have cake?! Or to the reality behind the metaphor: those children, by being raised to be suicide terrorists, by being used as human shields for their propaganda value, are not even given the opportunity of life, and you talk about peace?!

“There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” (Proverbs 14:12) But how can we know which way leads to life and which to death? Surely that requires knowledge of the future? Yes. So go by the word of the only One who knows the future, all of the future, and you will never fail. Go with HaShem, and you will never sleep on a troubled bed of your own making.

Labels: ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice article as always, but I have to disagree with one point you raised. You say that most Israelis wanted a separate Fakestinian state, as shown by the election results from 1992-2000, but Rabin came in on a platform of no negotionations with the PLO in 92, and Netanyahu had basically promised to do away with Oslo, thats what got him elected in 96, and Barak only came to power because Netanyahu was such a disaster. Despite the claims from the Israeli media, a group about as honest as an Arab used car saleman. There was never much popularity for surrender in Israel. Beyond which I dont really care if by Democracy we should give up parts of Eretz Yisrael, remember we dont follow a majority to do evil.

As for the Leftists you mentioned, I dont think they can do Teshuva, too many Jews have died because of their evil. Their hands are soaked in blood, and their is no way to undo what they have wrought.

May 04, 2007 6:38 PM  
Blogger Elder of Ziyon said...

I just noticed this gem:

The 'lite’ Zionists, who support the Zionist project but disagree, for moral and/or tactical reasons, with the mechanics of oppression and war currently employed by Israel, are even more disgusting than the neocons, who are at least honest in their insanity. The sole purpose of Zionism 'lite’ is to buy time for Israel, time which is being used to further the project of building Greater Israel.

May 04, 2007 8:25 PM  
Blogger ZionistYoungster said...

Shavua Tov.


As I recall, in 1992 there was a wide berth for the [mis]conception that the [first] Intifada had only a diplomatic, not military, solution. There was an expectation of signing of an agreement with the "Palestinians". What surprised almost everybody was Rabin's recalling of the Arafish and his PLO from Tunis in order to act as "the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people", in 1993. But even then, I remember that the spirit of "Give Peace A Chance" was held widely. And his assassination in 1995 actually slowed the disintegration of the "peace process", because the aura of martyrdom around him was brought forth as an argument as to why the efforts for achieving a negotiated peace should continue.

It was the enemy, and only the enemy, that brought all motivation for the surrender process to a halt within the Israeli Jewish public. As of now, our clueless leaders are very much the only ones who insist on keeping on despite the demonstrated failure.

As for their prospects of doing Teshuvah--you may be right, but we can still hope HaShem will work His miracles. Even King Menasheh wasn't beyond hope, after a life of corrupting the children of Israel to idolatry, and did repent at the end.


Thanks for the link you made to my post on your blog.

I saw this way of thinking first in response to David Grossman's speech a while back. It was the usual culprits on CounterPunch, saying basically in the same gist: "Grossman has the beginnings of thinking the right way, but he is still beholden to the racist ideology of Zionism, and that blinds him".

The position of moderate, left-wing peacenik Zionist is one that I didn't leave out of any eagerness. It was the other side, both the Muslims and the Leftists, who eventually nudged me toward it. So long as I believed this conflict was all about the 1967 territories, I could believe in a negotiated peace; as soon as it moved clearly to being about the very foundation of the state of Israel, I realized it was all a pipe-dream.

These Israel-haters do not realize--which is what Avnery, Lerner and Silverstein are trying to tell them--that there is no better action than a boycott against Israel to turn scores of Israeli Leftists away from their camp. As I said two posts back: the purported anti-bigotry always carries with it a bigotry, a fanaticism, a dualism of its own. Claiming to stand against bigotry, the people at CounterPunch are displaying their own type of bigotry. On his vicious website, Roger Tucker talks about the evils of "us vs. them" thinking, but is oblivious to the ironic fact that he himself thinks in that same box, where for him "us" = peace-lovers, anti-racists while "them" = fascists, warmongers and Zionists.

May 05, 2007 9:25 PM  
Blogger WomanHonorThyself said...

there is no doubt that 99.99 percent of Jewish Israelis want the State of Israel to exist as a state with a robust Jewish majority, whatever its borders’.....the A-rabs will not desist till all the Jews are in the Meditteranean..excellent work ZY!

May 06, 2007 5:09 AM  
Anonymous Rocky the Flying Squirrel said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

May 10, 2007 12:52 PM  
Blogger Richard said...

"the three’s fellow Leftists are ready to shun them for keeping to the position that Zionism is legitimate."

While I guess I should thank you for not entirely denouncing me & my views in this post, you are woefully misinformed in what you write above. I do not consider Amin Nussiebeh in any way as a comrade or representative of any "left" perspective that I respect. I am fully accepted within a progressive community of bloggers & readers who understand & embrace my views of Israel & Zionism. I don't look for affirmation fr. the Amin Nusseibehs of this world. In fact, if you've got to have an opponent on the Arab side it might've well be someone as ignorant as him.

And since one of yr commenters here has touted Steven Plaut's mock blog created in my name, I must ask you to review this complimentary comment about you at this travesty of a disgusting site:

"Our friends over at Zionist Youngster have just posted further exposure of Little Dickie's crybaby treason-mixed-with-whining."

Do you approve of your site being linked at this site (which includes pornographic references to me)? And if you don't will you say so publicly? And if you know the identity of the individual who created this site I would appreciate yr notifying me of this privately. He seems to know you or at least wants people to think he does.

I'm looking for someone of principle on the Zionist right who will denounce this cyber-bullying. So far no one has come forward. Care to be the first? Or do you wish to condone it as Aussie Dave and CK at Jewlicious have done by not denouncing their own links at this site.

May 11, 2007 10:00 AM  
Blogger ZionistYoungster said...


I know (from your comments on that thread, especially the last one I quoted) you don't consider Amin Nusseibeh to be one of yours. The point of my post, as in most others of this type, is to show the mainstreaming of the idea that Israel, as a Jewish state with Jewish character favoring a Jewish majority, has no right to exist (G-d forbid).

Now as for the blog you mention:

Offense isn't what I'm looking at. There's rarely a word can be said without offending someone. I'm offended by almost everything I read on Daily Kos, but it's my choice to read it, and I'm against "hate-speech laws" (more here).

However, as a Torah-observing Jew, I can see that the link contains enticement to two transgressions: lashon hara without any safek (because that blog is for the explicit purpose of speaking evil of a person), and the pornographic pictures lead to transgression of lo taturu. I do not support the removal of any website, except for ones with death threats and security secrets, but I decide what links appear on my blog, and I most certainly do not want links that entice Jews toward transgression. To the extent I have attacked you, it was not for attacking you as a person, but for attacking a phenomenon, a mindset, a worldview etc. My blog focuses on ideologies, not persons.

I condemn all attacks on persons that are for the purpose of attacking persons. This is not because I think people should be spared from things that offend them, but out of my principle that ideas and not persons should be the target of attack. There are personal attacks that are a necessity in the way of attacking a position (e.g. "Ramzy Baroud is a liar" or "Norman Finkelstein is a Nazi sympathizer"), but explicit bad-mouthing without any connection to an intellectual argument (e.g. "Martin Luther suffered from constipation") doesn't fall within those bounds.

May 11, 2007 12:50 PM  
Blogger ZionistYoungster said...

I've explained myself; if, now, following the deletion of that link, someone says, "ZionistYoungster has caved in to PC", then go ahead, it's not my problem, now that I've given my very good reasons. I can get passionate at times, especially after reading the anti-Israel screeds on Leftard sites, but in principle I maintain that my blogging life should be unlike my real life--that is: with a modicum of detachment. To quote Gurney Halleck from the first Dune book: "Mood's a thing for cattle or making love or playing the baliset. It's not for fighting."

May 11, 2007 12:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent post as always. You are a great asset to the JBlogosphere, Judaism and Zionism.

May 15, 2007 2:13 AM  
Blogger ZionistYoungster said...

Thanks, Smooth, I needed that. Because I often wonder if I haven't made an error in judgment in writing things... I'm talking about the border between lashon ha-ra and words that are for the benefit of Am Yisrael. Looks like the benefit is there.

May 15, 2007 2:07 PM  
Anonymous Dusty said...

Sorry for the non-sequitor comment. I've been desperately spaming this across the pro-israel blogsphere. We need to use the power of the internet to get this message out to the people.

Its been said "If the people led, the leaders will follow" I think that might be a little overly optimistic.

I think Jerry Garcia's words are more apt "Somebody had to do something, and its incredibly pathetic that it had to be us"

I've been reading about the anti-Israel march in Washington this weekend (June 10) It seems that everyone is waiting for someone else to take a leadership role, and nothing has happened. But time is running out and we cannot remain silent.

A grassroots effort has emerged to counter the lies and demonization in the streets, but it needs to be promoted. Please- we need to get this message out to the community We've waited too long. The time to act is now.

Please- help us get the word out. When Israel is attacked publicly, we must respond publicly.

A pro-Israel grassroots response is being organized for this weekend

America, Stand with Israel at the Counter-Rally on June 10, 2007.
You CAN make a difference.

Come to Washington DC on June 10, and join us in a rally to support Israel's right to peace, security and defensible borders!

Israel's opponents are on the move: On June 10, 2007, to mark the 40th anniversary of Israel's 1967 war of survival, the extremist groups "United for Peace and Justice" and "Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation" will hold what even the liberal magazine Tikkun called a rally for the "dissolution of the State of Israel." The "United for Peace and Justice" coalition includes such radical organizations as the Socialist Party USA, the Young Communists League, Communist Party USA, and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

Israel's supporters depend on you: We will gather on the West side of 3rd Street on the Mall, between Madison and Jefferson Drives. We are organizing this literally one week before the event, with almost no resources or time. This Counter-Rally truly is the product of a few citizens who are deeply outraged that Israel's opponents might have demonstrated in our nation's capitol without any patriotic opposing voices who will tell truth to counter these lies. We must stand up to lies and distortions.

We will not have a microphone or a speakers' platform, but we CAN show our support with our signs, flags, patriotic songs and our own strong voices as individual citizens exercising our right to assemble. We are bringing signs and flags for you to hold, sponsored by Stand with Us.

Date: Sunday, June 10

Place: Begin assembling on the west side of 3rd Street on the Mall, between Madison Drive and Jefferson Drive at 1:00 PM. Our exact location may change. Please check here before the rally, and look for our American and Israeli flags on June 10.


The Counter-Rally: The Stand with Israel Counter-Rally begins at 2:00 PM and lasts until 4:00 PM
The March: The March from the Capitol to the Ellipse begins at 4:00 PM. We plan to march with our signs and flags parallel to, but apart from, the main demonstration.

What to bring: Bring a cell phone, food, water, a hat, and sunscreen.
Transportation: Don't drive--there is limited public parking on Capitol Hill. Take the metro to either Union Station on the red line or Capitol South

There will be buses coming down from NYC.

June 07, 2007 9:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Read about Little Dickie


July 22, 2007 12:35 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home