Given your opposition to reservationizing the Palestinians, why would you build a site for “The David Project” an organization allied to the Christian zionists, and an organization that demonizes even moderate Palestinians like Joseph Massad, and the Sabeel Center. Did you work for them probono?

It most certainly does. I have posted about their slanderous claims about the Sabeel Center before. They claimed they supported terrorism, and allied themselves with christian zionists stand for Israel in this smear, then they showed their right wing colors by claiming Sabeel extremists for defending the two holy mosques from attacks by “The Temple Faithful”.

So the website erased the file. Google http://www.c4rpme.org/&hl=en&c…>didn’t.. Anyway, I am betting mobius remembers my post. I also saved the file on my own http://progressive_2001.tripod…>website.
Now maybe you are trying to clean up your act, but erasing files doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. I hope mobious is beginning to catch on to the david projects basic dishonesty.

Here is another goodie where the david project claims sabeel a christian organization supports intolerance against http://www.c4rpme.org/&hl=en&c…>christians. LOL. and excuses terror.

Now maybe you are trying to clean up your act, but erasing files doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. I’m not sure who “you” is; you seem to be confusing readers willing to call you on bullshit, with the objects of your criticism. That doesn’t seem a particularly good bet to make. In my case, it happens to be wrong.
So the website erased the file. Google http://www.c4rpme.org/&hl=en&c…>didn’t.. Anyway, I am betting mobius remembers my post. This article discusses Sabeel’s divestment campaign, argues that it is anti-Israel, and ties it to a larger pattern of what it alleges is an anti-Israel position generally. It does so by relying on quotes on so on. One can validly disagree, and one can make an argument in the opposite direction. On the other hand, your attempt to paint their criticism as invalid and boycott-worthy does not strike me as very evenhanded. I would suggest you criticise, not demonise. Use your words.
Here is another goodie where the david project claims sabeel a christian organization supports intolerance against http://www.c4rpme.org/&hl=en&c…>christians. LOL. and excuses terror. Yes, they certanly seem to be upset about what Sabeel has to say. That, in turn, certainly seems to upset you. I do not understand why you feel this requires demonising the David Project, apparently one of the groups which supports the coalition whose cached Web site you linked to.
The brunt of your argument seems to be that Joseph Massad and Sabeel constitute moderate voices and, therefore, that anyone disagreeing with them should be considered beyond the pale. I am almost completely unfamiliar with Sabeel. Joseph Massad’s alleged moderation is not a universal or even widely-held view, unless of course one confines one’s sample to a very narrow swathe of the spectrum.
You have not convinced me.

They don’t just support the coalition. The man that heads the david project wrote the article which among other things claims the two holy mosques are a “conspiracy against Jewish Culture” and that Sabeel are extremists beyond the pale who should be marginalized for protecting them from attacks by Jewish extremists. They demonized themselves, which is probably why the articles got erased. My bet is lawsuites were forthcoming.
Mobius, I am sure one could personally like Dick Cheney as well. I”ll bet they have a narrow definition of Zionist which will not include people who advocate two states. Beery worked for Daniel Pipes’s Campus Watch, which was nothing less than a McCarthyite organization. I’ll bet the real purpose of this site is to put leftwing zionists beyond the pale of acceptability or to control them.

Dameocrat has a funny way of dismissing and even demonizing anyone who criticizes one of her pet causes. Then she complains about McCartyism on the other side. People like her are very bad for the peace process. They bypass rational debate and impose a black and white, good vs. evil dicotomy on anyone who offers an opinion. Good is anyone who mimics her line. Evil is anyone who attempts to challenge it.
Btw, there is nothing moderate about an organization like Sabeel that claims that Israel has no right to exist, but because of certain facts on the ground, cannot be uprooted easily, and therefore grudgingly accepts a two-state solution. If someone said Arabs should all be transfered out of Israel, but that wouldn’t really work so we’ll let them stay, I doubt they would be called moderate by anyone.

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/edi…

btw, the article you linked to by massad states he think zionism is racism.
I suspect you would learn more if you read more carefully — outside, for instance, your ideological blinkers. Yes, he states Zionism is racism, obviously; that’s the mantra of every zealot who denied the Jewish people’s existence. And, just as obviously, not every anti-Zionist is racist; some just stand bitterly opposed to the United Nations and rule of law. But that’s not Joseph Massad’s reasoning; what the article does do is make clear that Massad is either of unaware of or dishonest about the history of the Jews and of Zionism, respectively.
It is not clear what makes such a position a moderate one.

Dameocrat, read the site. If you think that all Zionists are racists — meaning, if you are so damn closed minded that you can’t imagine the Jewish people might want the right to self-determination that every other peoples, including the Palestinians, deserves — then you probably will not like what you see. But if you have a universal ethic of rights, you might actually get into it.
And, by the way, the site in no way has to do with the David Project. Aharon and I, along with a number of students, were aided by the David Project when professors abused their position in the classroom to politicize affairs. Joseph Massad was one of them, and the censoring thought petition is, frankly, after-the-fact BS. Massad is well known for his outspoken views, and even reputable Lefties think he is off the deep end: http://www.zeek.net/politics_0… (Even Said thought Massad needed to take a chill pill, by the way.)
We had no power to silence anyone–we were just letting the student’s voices be heard, just like the professors were heard. We don’t control the media (even though we are Jews), we don’t control the university (I swear that neither Bollinger nor Brinkley are even Jews)–we just exercised our right to free speech. And I hope you respect public dissent.
Also, I would hope that every one of Jewschool’s readers would decry racism and anti-Semitism when they saw it, and fight for the rights of students to be free from politicization in the classroom (just wait, if fifty years if the radical right gains in the Academy, who will protect the radicals?) But that is besides the point: that was then, this is now. People move on.
So yeah–Check out the site, join the debate, and maybe we’ll all learn something.

Hi Xisnotx,
Think of it this way: a woman or a child complains about abuse; she tells her parents, friends, and finally the administrators who are responsibile for her. The powers that be shut her down. Months later she decides to take a chance and testifies for a film. That film is made public when an administrator speaks about it at a public gathering, and a public firestorm ensures.
A commission asked to investigate asks people to testify about the incident. They speak to the accused and accuser, and ask for all students who have relevant information to come forward. After finding the story of abuse credible, and ruling on it, suddently, a group of other students who did not come before the committee suddenly say “we saw nothing.”
You wouldn’t buy it then, I don’t buy it now, and administrators who called the students in to a meeting and spoke with them found that these students simply rejected the findings of the committee. It turns out that they simply don’t remember much from the class. They can’t tell the day, but they can say that it was a heated class–meaning, they remember the tension but can’t (and didn’t when the had the chance) testify that abuse did not occur.
That is why it is after-the-fact BS.