This is amusing, in a darkly humorous sort of way:
More recently, Daniel Levy, director of the Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation and a member of J Street, said in an interview: “America has three choices. Either say, it’s politically too hot a potato to touch, and just pay the consequences in the rest of the world. Or try to force through a peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians, so that the Palestinian grievance issue is no longer a driving force or problem.” The third choice, he said, “is for America to say, we can’t solve it, but we can’t pay the consequences, so we will distance ourselves from Israel. That way America would no longer be seen, as it has been this week, as the enabler of excesses of Israeli misbehavior.”
Via Hot Air. It's darkly humorous because there are five options here, not three - which Daniel Levy knows full well.
Option Four is the simple, straightforward, and by the way moral one: the United States of America continues to support the Republic of Israel in its reasonable, proportionate, and responsible efforts to prevent terrorist attacks on its country and citizens. Option Five is the one that the 'peace movement' embraces: the world should stop trying the half measures of Options One, Two, and Three and get on with driving all the Jews into the Mediterranean Sea. That's where the actual battle-line is being drawn these days: it's either support our ally from world attempts to brutalize it, or join in the brutalization. This will be disputed, of course; and let me personally note that I bask in the disapproval of people who like to publicly show their support for the movement that murdered Shiri Negari.
I honestly hesitate to suggest that Daniel Levy espouses Option Five personally: he claims to be an Option Two supporter, and I have no evidence otherwise. But I am not even remotely surprised that a J Street professional apologist forgets to even mention Option Four.
Crossposted to Moe Lane.