You had some pointed questions of Mr. Luger of the
differences between AIPAC and JStreet.

I responded by pointing out the differences I see between your views and JStreets view AND the difference I see between AIPAC (especially the conduct of some of their prominent members). Even asked Mr. Luger to correct me if he disagreed.

Wonder why pointing out your views (or those AIPAC’s) when they contradict with those of JStreet’s are so offensive or irrelevant. After almost your entire post to Mr. Luger were along these lines.

After all this is a discussion on Israel and the peace process. Almost always we are, well and repeatedly, reminded by prominent AIPAC members on the prior statements and antecedents of its counter parties in such discussions. Wonder why is that so difficult when I point out your prior statements ? Are they so inconvenient currently ?

“Fourthly another difference I would like to point out is I believe J-Street members don’t go around calling people “anti-semite” and “self-hating Jew” etc when they disagree with American policy towards Israel. Can we say that of AIPAC members.”

Jennas response:
” but simply proceeded to attack me, and all AIPAC supporters generally (which does not really get at the purpose of either organization, now does it?), ”

Where is the attack on Jenna here ?

I am pointing out that AIPAC members (prominent ones not just some random memver) use terms like “anti-semite” and “self-hating Jew” against people who disagree with them. If that is an attack on you where are you referred to in that statement ?

Also if that is a false statement regarding some AIPAC members why don’t you be bold enough to accuse me of making false statements in this regard. Or would that be too difficult ?

Finally reading your posts in the archives one may have to gently remind you that you are quick to label people or organizations “anti-semites”. And yet you claim “attack” on people who counter your own views !!!

Don’t worry, I don’t have a problem with anything of mine you care to repeat (especially if you repeat it in context), and I do not find anything you say “inconvenient” in the least.

However, this post was about J Street, and was intented to be an announcement of an event they are hosting in our city.

It seems rude, and irrelevant, to me to engage in a random discussion of my general views on the Middle East in this forum. It is inconsiderate toward Mr. Andrew Luger, who posted the announcement, and it is inconsiderate toward his organization.

Asking questions about his organization, or their aims, or the event itself, seems reasonable. Discussing my views on the 1967 line as a viable potential border does not.

So once again, I will respectfully bow out of this discussion, and suggest that out of respect for the author of this post and his purpose with it, you do the same. You are free to disregard me, of course.

Sincerely,

~Jenna

Attack you ? Wait a minute, I am pointing out your own points like Jews living in Palestine, no 1967 borders, three state solution (where Palestinians have to ask for their land AFTER the solution).

I countered with a proposal Arabs and Israelis living in all of the lands as totally equal citizens. And now u claim I am attacking you. How so.

Any question you have posed I have answered. And you will not answer a basic question of what do you claim Israels borders are when u disown the 1967 border.

Are repeating your own views and your refusal to answer my counter questions (like equal status for Palestinians in Israel just like for you ask for Jewish people) an attack ?

Why don’t you stand up for your views ? Or have i broken some kind of unspoken code by asking inconvenient questions ?