Opinion | Op-eds

Peace in the Columbia community

“The community isn’t ready for peace.”

This was not the response I had expected to receive from my classmate, who also serves as a fellow Hillel leader. Shortly after my visit to Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, I had told him about my experiences. With a renewed sense of urgency and unshakable images in my mind, I had recounted to him the profound injustice I had just witnessed while staying with Palestinian friends and family in the West Bank. In light of the current peace negotiations, I had expressed to him the need for students—especially our shared Jewish community at Columbia—to transcend mere dialogue and take political action. I had conveyed the need to organize students’ public support for peace negotiations, reflecting both Israeli and Palestinian interests to our elected officials, when he flatly dismissed my charge.

My classmate’s cynicism is only one voice within an undoubtedly pluralistic dialogue about Israel and Palestine. At least four groups under Hillel, despite our different missions, are devoted to this issue. Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine specifically advocates for the rights of Palestinians whose daily lives are impacted by Israel’s military occupation. Other student groups and academic departments frequently host discussions to confront the harsh realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The political and academic culture here inspires us to be deeply invested in dialogue about this issue.

But how valuable is this abundance of dialogue if it doesn’t provoke us to act on our convictions? What have years of  yearning for peace and justice within our groups done to affect peace and justice beyond our groups? Of course, honest and vigorous dialogue must necessarily precede peace activism, but a stagnant dialogue can actually preclude effective activism. If my classmate’s assessment is true—if our Israel-saturated community truly isn’t “ready” for peace—then it is the responsibility of community leaders to actively seek peace.

Top Israeli and Palestinian leaders—and our own elected officials across the political spectrum—have repeatedly expressed support for a two-state solution. Moreover, they did so because their constituents demanded it. American citizens, largely through campaigns led by progressive American Jews, successfully organized political power to increase public support for a peaceful, just, and secure establishment of a future Palestinian state beside Israel. However, despite a majority’s consensus towards a two-state solution, our community leaders have not explicitly supported the negotiations that are necessary to realize that solution.

Political statements are insufficient when action doesn’t follow them, just as dialogue is futile when it fails to provoke change. Students have debated the four “final status issues” that repeatedly face Israelis and Palestinians in peace negotiations: national security, defined borders, legal status of Jerusalem, and a response to Palestinian refugees that honors international law. We know that both sides must make tough compromises on these four final status issues in order to actualize a viable two-state solution. Yet in this critical moment, amidst current peace negotiations that our own government is mediating, our community leaders have remained publicly silent. While there are profound differences of opinion among groups, all of them say they want peace, but their silence loudly proclaims that they aren’t “ready” for it.

But there is a growing constituency of us who refuse to tolerate the injustice of the status quo. We long for peace, as generations of Jews longed for a home, and as the Palestinians living as refugees continue to long for theirs. Israel has been a home for many students, and yet we watch the occupation endanger Israel’s future, betray our values, and divide our communities. The activism of SJP and Columbia students’ connections to Palestine demand an honest, proactive response from our communities. Columbia students can seek peace not only by holding our leadership accountable for their words—or lack thereof—but by demonstrating our own commitment to it. In order to create change, we must transform this stagnant dialogue into public presence. 

This is why J Street CU brought The 2 Campaign to Columbia, to facilitate and transform open conversation about the “final status issues” into action. The campaign’s nationwide petition shows our support for compromises on borders, security, refugees, and Jerusalem as the American envoy leads the current negotiations. Advocating for pragmatic solutions to these issues is imperative because they are an essential part of any two-state agreement. Through practicality, we can turn our frustration into strategic activism. We can lead our community to promote a just solution to the conflict, before peace escapes us.

The author is a Columbia College senior majoring in Middle Eastern history and Jewish studies. She is a co-chair of J Street CU and a member of Columbia/Barnard Hillel. 

To respond to this op-ed, or to submit an op-ed, contactopinion@columbiaspectator.com.

Comments

Plain text

  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Your username will not be displayed if checked
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
one bone to pick posted on

I think you're a little too generous to Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine.

At least from what I've seen at their protests on campus, they've never actually claimed to want peace. Instead, they go simply for "justice" with a decidedly vengeful connotation.

In my personal experience as a spectator, the only solution they have seemed to offer for their justice is a vague one-state solution (the one state being "Palestine" that wipes Israel off the map). Without sounding too extreme, that doesn't sound much different than Hamas' charter to me.

You guys at Hillel should focus on moderate Palestinian voices - SJP doesn't want to be in a conversation, and they don't deserve to be in it either.

+1
+5
-1
Hmmm posted on

It is really not up to you or to anyone to decide who "deserves" to be in a conversation.

+1
-6
-1
duh posted on

it's an opinion - that's the whole part of commenting on an article. duh.

+1
-2
-1
Hmmm posted on

duh. I was opinionating on said opinion. What's your point?

+1
+1
-1
duh posted on

your opinion was that he/she should not have an opinion - hence the "you can't"
that's the definitional limit of freedom of opinion :)

+1
-1
-1
Dude posted on

You're an idiot who minces words. Shut up.

+1
-11
-1
Anonymous posted on

OP explained why he doesn't think SJP deserves to be part of said discussion. Your response was that he doesn't have a right to this opinion, then when he criticizes your comment you declare that he is mincing words. Derp.

+1
+3
-1
By that logic posted on

OP's comment that SJP doesn't deserve to be a part of the conversation is the equivalent of denying them an opinion. I never said OP didn't deserve to post the opinion, I said it was not in his/her hands to allow or not allow SJP into the conversation.

+1
-2
-1
OP posted on

1) I said SJP doesn't deserve to be in the conversation in part because they refuse to be in it.
2) I said focusing in SJP is pointless and Hillel should choose to direct their attention elsewhere. They can have their opinion, but another's attention is not a god-given right - I'm sure SJP will scream their opinion from the rooftops anyway.
3) I said SJP's views are extreme - despite the ideals of an ideal world there is unfortunately a limit to legitimacy and *in my oppinion*, SJP has crossed over it, hence why *I think* Hillel should not give them *their* attention.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

How can people still be taken seriously when they use blatantly rhetorical conspiracy-laden speech? You're right bud, Columbia students are participating in one giant plot against the state of Israel and Jews alike. Your insinuation that they just might support Hamas is SPOT ON.

Seriously, it may be an opinion, but the amount of thought that went into this dump of pre-fed Fox news level response is abysmal

+1
-12
-1
Anonymous posted on

...Did you even read what she wrote? Or see the links she includes to accompany it? She is critically examining her own community leaders.

Fox News - and right-wing Jews - would never make a public plea to end the Occupation.

+1
+5
-1
nested comments posted on

^understand them

+1
-10
-1
re-read posted on

was responding to the person above not the writer, look again yo

+1
-1
-1
FYI posted on

The comment you responded to wasn't directed at the original article, but the comment by "one bone to pick" which suggests that SJP's position is basically the same as the Hamas charter.

+1
-9
-1
Nadia posted on

Maybe you are choosing to not actually listen to what SJP is saying. They speak of justice, because they know that so long as Palestinian mothers die giving birth at checkpoints, so long as cancer patients are denied permits for treatment, so long as students with scholarships are not permitted to attend university, so long as West Bank water resources (82%) are usurped by Israel, so long as farmland and ancient olive groves are destroyed to build further settlements, and so long as Palestinian families go homeless because Israel has bulldozed their home (27,000 homes so far)- Palestinians cannot live with dignity. If you can't live with dignity, with self-determination, without real justice, how can there be peace? Currently, Palestinians live under Israeli military rule. They have no real infrastructure, no real government (at least not one with actual control), no army. The most intimate details of their lives- including their marriage rights- are determined by the Israeli state, a country which is subsidized by US tax and tuition dollars and has one of the strongest militaries in the world. Now, really ask yourself. Honestly. Is this a "conflict"? Is this a "war"? What is the power balance here? Nelson Mandela, rest his soul, said "Only free men can negotiate." Well, the Palestinians are not free, and they have very few resources and options for fighting for their liberation. Think about these things critically, before you jump to narrow conclusions about what SJP, and the movement for Palestinian liberation generally, is really all about.

+1
0
-1
Don't fall for the posted on

diversion tactic

+1
-2
-1
James Baldwin posted on

Read me.

+1
+5
-1
Anonymous posted on

A spec op-ed about a complex issue in which the author actually knows what she's talking about and offers a well-written opinion! Finally!

+1
+6
-1
Concerned Jew posted on

Very biased article.
Shows exactly how J-Street so blatantly crossed the line between healthy self criticism and a downright anti-Israel agenda.

+1
-6
-1
Anonymous posted on

it's worth noting that the section on ms. salazar is inaccurate. there is no membership at Hillel, anyone and everyone are welcome. she does not, of course, represent an official Hillel opinion and so that part is pretty unnecessary and even misleading.

+1
-9
-1
Anonymous posted on

Should she apply for a membership card through you, mr. anonymous? Is being a leader of an official Hillel group insufficient?

+1
+11
-1
Anonymous posted on

What are you talking about? You literally cannot have a membership to Hillel. Anyone can go to Hillel events, Jewish or Gentile alike. And her characterization of herself as a "Hillel leader" is completely misleading because she is not on the official Hillel e*board. She is not a leader of the Hillel.

+1
-4
-1
A Hillel "member" posted on

I'm not sure what your motive is in making inaccurate statements about the author and Hillel, but let's at least establish some facts:

1. There are dozens of student groups which are officially recognized by Columbia-Barnard Hillel.
2. J Street CU is an officially recognized Hillel group.
3. The leaders of J Street CU, including the author, are Hillel group leaders.

You mention Hillel's student e-board. The students on the e-board serve various roles as Hillel leaders. Cool.

The e*board is never mentioned in this article, so it's unclear why you try to make that claim for the author. The Spec tagline only identifies her & the group she leads as part of Hillel. Calm down.

PS: You say, "a leader of The Hillel," eh? Is that like "the Facebook" or "the Google"?

+1
+12
-1
CC '17 posted on

The refugee camps are a political ploy by the leaders of the Arab world. If you don't believe me, just look at what happened when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were expelled from Quwait during the Gulf War. They were absorbed by Jordan (the first Palestinian state) -- no questions asked. Studies have repeatedly and consistently shown that all the so-called-refugees could easily be absorbed by Syria and/or Jordan without any negative effects. I am highly saddened by these refugee camps because the Palestinian-Arabs' neighbors could easily give them citizenship, land, water, etc. but choose not to not out of justice but spite and hate of Israel. Why is everyone so ignorant and blinded by their own political correctness on this campus? Down with the refugee camps. Arab = Arab.
And if you're still so concerned over the refugees, why are you not concerned about all the Sephardi Jews expelled from the Arab world (and absorbed by Israel) in the 50s? These hundreds of thousands of Jews aren't complaining because Jew protects fellow Jew, and Israel gave them citizenship. Do they ask for their land and homes back? Why can't the Arabs do the same thing? And why aren't these people calling for justice for expelled Jews? (By the way, I have yet to see my grandfather's Polish citizenship returned to me, nor his land and property taken by the government, nor his money stolen by the Swiss banks. Why don't you protest about that?) It's called a double standard.
If there is a second Palestinian state established, it will be an act of pure generosity. Israel has no obligation to compromise its own security for the greed of the Arab world looking to add a 22nd state to its collection, and eventually a 23rd.

+1
-9
-1
let's try an experiment posted on

"The state of Israel a political ploy by the leaders of the European world. If you don't believe me, just look at what happened when hundreds of thousands of Jews were expelled from Germany during World War II. They were absorbed by America -- no questions asked. Studies have repeatedly and consistently shown that all the so-called-Israelis could easily be absorbed by American and/or Canada without any negative effects. I am highly saddened by the state of Israel because the Americas neighbors could easily give them citizenship, land, water, etc. but choose not to not out of justice but spite and hate of Palestinians. Why is everyone so ignorant and blinded by their own political correctness on this campus? Down with the state of Israel. European = European."
Now my point here isn't that this is actually the position I advocate, but that this is the logic of your argument. Because Palestinians CAN be saved, then they should. There is no acknowledgement of harm done. You're only attempt is "Jews have been expelled in X number of ways, but why do Palestinians get to complain about it?" Illegal settlements continue to expel Palestinians daily (this isn't Leftist propaganda, just go read the New York Times, a long supporter of Zionism!) as you posture about the "double standard" of historical injustice. If we simply continued the practice of Jew protecting Jew, Arab protecting Arab, etc. then we would live in a world where Israel can continue to expel and replace people from their homes on the basis of race as other nation's begin to "nobly" gobble them up. Sounds like Jordan and/or Syria [a wonderful time to come visit!] would be doing those Arabs a wonderful favor by enabling the demolitions to continue!
And I know this can never be proved by anonymous comment, but I am an American Jew. I question the Israeli legacy on the basis of personal political commitment to equality, a position I am proud to stand by along a long legacy of Jewish intellectuals.

+1
-3
-1
lol posted on

CC'17 (above) says: "And if you're still so concerned over the refugees, why are you not concerned about all the Sephardi Jews expelled from the Arab world (and absorbed by Israel) in the 50s?"

Your entire comment, but particularly this quote, demonstrates an incredibly simplistic [mis]understanding of Jewish history, Jewish identity, and Jewish migration - especially throughout the Arab world in the 50's. Jews who made aliyah from N. Africa and Middle Eastern countries during that immigration wave were referred to as Mizrahim, and this remains a common generic term in Israel. Mizrahim and Sephardim are not seamlessly interchangeable terms. And your "Arab = Arab" claim is particularly inappropriate here, in the wake of your mention of this particular immigration wave of Arabic-speaking mizrahi Jews from the Middle East. Tell me, since it is so "cut n' dry" to you: does "Arab = Arab" apply to these Arab Jews, also?

Most importantly: Palestinian refugees have nothing to do with your strange, anachronistic blend of narratives.

+1
+5
-1
Lina posted on

"Arab = Arab"? Are you serious? Why, because we're all the same? Would you tell someone from Argentina that they would be just fine in Chile? That is doesn't matter that they were expelled from their home because Latinos = Latinos? Yeah, no, sorry. And you obviously have such a dismal understanding of the conditions that Palestinian refugees are living in. People have the right to live in the land in which they were born. Period. This includes Israelis that have made a home there, but it also must mean full equal rights for Palestinians.

Also, you say: "these hundreds of thousands of Jews aren't complaining because Jew protects fellow Jew, and Israel gave them citizenship." You aren't even making sense. Jews and Arabs are not two separate categories! You know there are Arab Jews. So yeah, your statement that Arabs should take in and protect Arabs (I think you mean Palestinians) is ridiculous. If you're an Arab, you can be a multitude of religions, and be from a multitude of places. It is not some homogenous category.

You make so many poor assumptions it's hard to know where to start. But YOU can start by not speaking for other people and their experiences.

+1
-1
-1
The heavily pro-Israel sentiment posted on

in this entire comment section is super, super-scary. Nothing like people being blind to the complete awful crap that Israel does on a daily basis.

+1
+1
-1
Anonymous posted on

You're basic question, of how American pro-Israel groups can be so supportive of a two-state solution yet not be active in pressuring Israel to conform to it, is rather easy to answer. Many of these groups simply don't believe in forcing Israel's citizens into an solution they are justifiably fearful of and worried about. They believe that first, Israel's people must accept the two-state solution and express confidence in it; that no solution should be dictated onto the Israeli people until they are ready for it, until they have let go of the traumas of the Intifada and are ready to make ammends. This actually happened within the last couple years, about 5 years after the end of the Intifada, with a wide majority of Israelis now supporting the two-state solution.

(I am not suggesting that the Israelis were the only victims of the Intifada and were not guilty of their own problems. However, for years, Israelis, even those who had nothing to do with the conflict, had to deal with almost daily bus bombings and suicide attacks on their children and citizenry. I simply wish to point out the lasting trauma this experience triggered.)

The American pro-Israel groups seek to help Israel by providing the help Israel asks for, which is diplomatic and military support. Anything more violates what they believe to be the appropriate way to assist Israel.

+1
-5
-1
Anonymous posted on

Let me be frank. I am also up for two states solutions. I really am. And I’ve learned to appreciate the inherent complexity in a discussion while having the ability to keep it constructive, for all sides. But what I am scared the most is from people like yourself.
Let me explain. “Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine specifically advocates for the rights of Palestinians whose daily lives are impacted by Israel’s military occupation.”

Really? Really? Not even a single word about their propaganda that is nothing but “anti-Israel” and not “pro palestine” like they try to promote (and apparently they had it on you)?

This is what I’m afraid of. This arrogant voice that aspires for something good and blessed, that is, a true dialogue between the sides, is blind, perhaps deliberately, to its own claims by omitting the considerations of real fears that should definitely not be swept under the rug that easily. It is really nice to promote something and be proud of it. But if you - and that goes out to the left wing and so-called intellectuals out there - want to genuinely change something, you would have to be able to look the real problems in the eye. You asking from right wing people to look at the Palestinians suffering (although some of them can actually be justified, but I don’t want to get into this. Some of them are definitely not and should be dismissed entirely), you have to, consequently, criticize equally other harms done by the other side. Only then would it considered to be a real dialogue. Don’t blind yourself and others in your narrative. Want to be pro-peace? I’ll be on the train right away. But don’t lie to your people, or most importantly, to yourself.

+1
+2
-1
Julia posted on

Hi, Anonymous!

Funny how easy it is to level unsubstantiated criticism towards others when we can, in fact, remain anonymous.

Thanks for taking a moment to read this. Although, it is disappointing to me that you appear to have taken only that - a moment. As a result, you've attacked some statements here without any regard for their meaningful context, and you've clearly glossed over the rest of the op-ed.

Let's unpack your first incredulous statement:

"Really? Really? Not even a single word about their propaganda that is nothing but “anti-Israel” and not “pro palestine” like they try to promote (and apparently they had it on you)?"

Really. And furthermore, I don't otherwise evaluate SJP in this op-ed. I don't make a positive or negative judgment about their claims. I took care to avoid making unsound statements (as Spec editors also would have addressed during editing) and avoid evaluating Columbia SJP's actions.

Know why? Because, despite how you'd like to portray it, this article is not about SJP. It would be completely irrelevant for me to criticize SJP's tactics or their ideology here, because this op-ed is a request for accountability and meaningful action from our community leaders who claim a). to support Israel and b). to support a two-state solution.

SJP's activism is strategically provocative. We may both vehemently differ from some of SJP's views - but they certainly, as you oddly phrased it, "had it on you," Anon! They engage in provocative activism, and here they've effectively provoked a response from you in a public forum.

Aside from it not adding value to the op-ed, it would furthermore be inappropriate and out-of-line for me to claim, as you do, that SJP is "not pro-palestine." This is because I don't have an intimate knowledge of SJP, and I also am not a Palestinian.
So I'll have to categorically reject these edits you're proposing I make, because they're dishonest and baseless.

"But don’t lie to your people, or most importantly, to yourself."

While you can certainly debate the ideas I present here, you can't support a claim (or any evidence, clearly) that it is dishonest. Actually, Anon, it's the uncensored honesty within this op-ed that's provoked you to anger over it at all.

And let me make something explicitly clear: it certainly does not "lie to [my] people." But who ARE my people, Anon? And what makes them "mine," if even you seem to know them better than I do?

Perhaps by "my people" you mean, for example, my mother, who even as a politically conservative Zionist, spent extensive time with me in Aida Refugee camp in December/January - last month. Precisely the visit which inspired an op-ed.

Something tells me, Anon, that you haven't visited Aida Camp, near the northern part of the Palestinian village of Beit Jala. But perhaps you are familiar with the nearby illegal settlements (under int'l law), such as Har Homa, or Gilo? No? Here is a helpful map. http://archive.peacenow.org/map.php

Is this the blinding narrative you refer to, Anon? Please point out the discrepancies.

"Only then would it [sic] considered a real dialogue," you said. Anon, I think you missed my op-ed's point, yet again. I recognize the dialogue at Columbia. I mentioned that there is a pluralistic, nuanced dialogue about Israel here, and it thrives largely because Hillel has made that dialogue possible through programs like the iEngage seminar, and in other ways by using facilitation guides and resources of NGOs like Encounter.

But I've also witnessed the suffering in Aida, in Abu Dis (which you might call Kidmat Zion, circa 2006), even in the village of Beit Sahour, where I've lived and worked. And while you feel compelled to advocate for another cause, this is the reality that I experienced. I see the dialogue, Anon. We're engaging in it. But the entire point that you've overlooked is: dialogue is not enough.

+1
+2
-1
Anon (or for you, worried Israeli on campus) posted on

Oh Julia, don't take it too hard. The only reason my real name didn't appear is because I don't reply here so often. Nothing personally about you or the issues at stake believe me.

In regards to your comments, well, you're spot on! The first couple of paragraphs were enough for me to realize that I won't read here something shocking or game changing. Taking a glimpse at Jstreet's petition sustained that thought even further. You probably asking why? Well, it is the same old narrative "Israel was a bad kid. therefore we should go to negotiations now. 2 state solutions is the best solution." Do you see any problem here or it is just me? If not, let me enlighten you with just some marginal issues that should be tackled, be yet again, though definitely unsurprisingly, were left out, thus making whatever it is you wanted to convey irrelevant, and in the same vein make people like myself and many else out there (pragmatic right wing) which are - and should be - at least part of your audience, feel like they couldn't care less, not trust your movement since it doesn't get close to demonstrate the reality. Worst than that, you continue to sin in the same actions that many other left wingers do - be real to themselves! But no, rather you guys prefer to pick a very simplistic plot, blind yourself, your audience, and the decision making people.

- Israel as a Jewish state. Is it important, at all? If not, maybe you should go and read Ari Shavit’s article (http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.574000), a former left wing who got a little bit sober about the real world.

- I see that you took the time to answer the question for me (which you were actually right. Yes, I have never been to Aida camp. Guilty as charged. Though I’ve visited many parts of the west bank and saw closely what their life is about. And as I mentioned before, many of them are actually justified if you do some research, many other are not, and I’m on board to go and fix that). Can I also play that game? Well, have you ever been to Shedrot, Maagan Michael, and other cities and communities that did nothing wrong but to live close by to Gaza? Even if you did, wasn’t is much easier to overlook that and continue bashing (even if legitimate) Israel throughout your piece (and let me do the honor to extend that assumption to Jstreet and other left wings movements both in the US and in Israel which are doing the exact same thing)? Don’t you see what you guys are doing wrong here? In order for us to get to the negotiation table, it has to be by honest measures. That is, presenting all points and facts. But Jstreet opts to make it much simpler. 2state solutions is the best. Just as SJP is a legitimate group on campus, so does Abu Mazan is a great partner that we shouldn’t be afraid from or worried to make compromises with since nothing can go wrong. This is my problem with your narrative. It overlooks so many important things I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry.

- Hamas. Gaza. Any word about the marginal problem? I understand why its so peripheral for you. After all, Abu Mazan extends his sovereignty all the way to Sinai. And he’s a strong, charismatic leader that controls and speaks for all of his people. And in case you haven’t watched the news lately, he barely gets support from his own people in the west bank. As for Gaza, well, PLO and Hamas have been trying to promote inner peace between them for decades, but it will never work. Why? because back in the Gaza election, after Hamas “democratically” won, his soldiers slaughtered so many of the Fatah people that even them, the Hamas, were disgusted about that. And it is behind the fact that they simply hate each other, both religiously and personally. But I’m going off tangent now. I am just wondering, then, why you didn’t bother adding a clause about how the future Palestinian state is going to look like? Are we making peace with Abu Mazan, with Hamas, with neither? Why didn’t you urge Kerry, in the same intensity and ambitiousness you asked to give up half of Jerusalem, to secure that “marginal” issue as well?

I can go on and on, but this is a nutshell some of the major issues.

And let me clarify again -- I am in favor of 2state solutions. But don’t fool yourself, and don’t fool others in making it seem like its either (1) very easy and make sense to achieve, or (2) it’s THE perfect solution and we have to achieve it now by any means possible!

These perspectives, held by many left wingers especially in Israel, proved to be ultimately wrong. Look what happened in the negotiations table with Olmert and Abu Mazan. Pushing so hard, and almost blindly into negotiations that can create much more damage and backlash that they can benefit both sides is just wrong. If you want to be real to yourself and to the people you humbly and seemingly represent, first you should check how do you present your data. How it is that in one op-ed there is not even one thing about Israel as a state thats doing something right. How come we have to cave for the negotiations?

And Last thing about the petition, well, it sustains actually what I criticized Jstreet for. “God is in the little things.” It’s too broad, nothing is specific. And the immediate jumping to make concessions is not seen equally in the other side.

I am not here to fight against you. Thats definitely not the aim of these responses. Rather, it is to show you why so many people still being skeptical when hearing about Jstreet. And as a direct result, don’t even bother to take interest in whatever it is you want to say. And some of the stuff you bring to the table are indeed legit and worthwhile to discuss and to act upon. But unless you change that old narrative “Israel did bad, we choose go for 2state solutions now,” not too many people will take you seriously. Work on your credibility, and be reliable when discussing these issues.

+1
-5
-1
alex posted on

so, you are blatantly lying about your identity. the comment which you are claiming as your own was actually posted by a different anonymous person. Also your side comment about your name not appearing is just inane.

the best random lie you told in order to try to gain credibility in this comment is identifying yourself as Israeli. You are not Israeli. I think you meant to say "Sderot." Cmon. They show that place to kids on their Birthright trips.

Stop repeating yourself. Your comment is childish and excessively long. Rambling on and on does not discount someone else's point or help your own.

+1
-2
-1
alex posted on

A lying anonymous commenter offers advice on "credibility." No thanks.

As for all of your hatred towards Abu Mazen and Palestinians, see this NY Times feature about Abbas' engagements with Israeli students about peace:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/world/middleeast/abbas-talking-to-israeli-students-about-peace-finds-a-receptive-audience.html?_r=1

+1
+2
-1
hwCiTlnz posted on

More about the author tramadol hcl 50 mg amneal - tramadol overnight delivery to florida

+1
0
-1
QEtHKhvG posted on

cheap tramadol online can get high tramadol hydrochloride - tramadol 50mg or 100mg

+1
0
-1
WLnqjZYj posted on

order tramadol tramadol hcl tab 50mg dosage - tramadol ultram side effects

+1
0
-1
FSMkAMIW posted on

gp.org tramadol dosage for high - buy tramadol usa online

+1
0
-1