How do you handle groups with multiple agendas?

[Betsy Ross]

I have attended rallies that were ostensibly to end our war in Iraq where speeches were made demanding Israel get out of Palestine. This is problematic for me. Although I may attend demonstrations, I will not openly support United for Peace and Justice or Code Pink. I just leave when the black and white kafiyas take the stage. About a year ago, I was commiserating with another DUer about the hostility we have encountered for not denouncing Israel or for just being Jewish. (Who knew Betsy Ross was Jewish?)

[Behind the Aegis]

1. My personal method

I take many of their "pieces" and arguments and replace "Muslim" for "Jew" and "Palestine" for "Israel" and act if it is my opinion. When they screech how it is Islamaphobic/anti-Arab, I point out what I have done and ask how can they say they are really fighting for peace and justice when bigotry is their foundation? This is easier to do in person, because you are dealing directly with the people. Doing something similar on a discussion board can be very tricky.

Another thing I point out is how quickly they fall on the argument that they will be accused of anti-Semitism from the very start of the discussion. This is a tactic used to shut up most Jews because many do not want to falsely accuse someone of racism or bigotry. There are examples of that all over this board, where an article about Israel is met with "well, I can't say anything because I just get called an anti-Semite." This is usually followed by a "rant" of some sort, sometimes on topic, sometimes not. So, I see it as trying to silence dissent before it happens.

The other thing some of them do is automatically throw out "you must be a freeper/mole/un-liberal/un-progressive" what ever the "other side" and other such bullshit. I just point out that is no different than a "freeper" saying because you don't support the war, you must not support the troops.

The truth, in my opinion, is that many "pro-Palestinians" actually know very little about Palestinians or Israel. They also tend to know very little history, and in some cases, don't even know who the major players in the conflict are. When you encounter those types, there is no discussion with them; they are stuck in a dualistic frame of mind and incapable of reasoning.

This is how I see things: there are three basic types of "pro-Palestinians," those who are such because they see an injustice, but also understand their is more than one side in this matter, but tend to favor Palestinians; there are those who are such because they are simply "anti-Israeli," and they are usually easy to identify because they will attack Israel on any given topic: "Israel can do no good" is their motto; finally, there are those who are such because they are anti-Semites. This 'formula' works the other way as well.

Jews are in a very precarious situation in the US, which is not uncommon. We have to deal with the fact that some of the leading neo-cons, whom are Jewish, and totally against what most Jews believe to be in the best interest of humanity are going to be at the forefront of discussions. We have the far left, which, at times, can mimic some of the crap from the far-right, who fail to see nuance in the I/P conflict. The worst part is dealing with our own kind who fall into either of those categories, as they are the ones used to justify the positions held by the two aforementioned groups.

So, how do I deal with groups with multiple agendas? I speak my mind, learn as much as I can, and then speak my mind some more!

[rockymountaindem]

2. It bothers me too.

Count me out of their rallies, too.

And I thought Betsy Ross was a Quaker?