There were two events that brought me off the bench and into the PR war, which of course led to my connecting with PJTN. The first was Carter's book labeling Israel as apartheid, which caused me to organize a protest at the Carter Presidential Library in May '08. The second was the JCPA resolution in favor of a two state "solution" (TSS). As publisher of TVOM, I interviewed the communications guy for JCPA. He decided to cooperate when I told him that, if he preferred not to give the interview, I would report that his response was , "No comment."

I asked him how, given that no prior agreement with the PLO, ... cease fires etc ... was ever honored by the PLO, he thought that anything short of going back to, sayyyy... 1933 borders would lead to a conclusion? In other words, did they actually believe that the other side really intended to reach an agreement?
And why wasn't the resolution's language more pro-Israel like, "We support a TSS IF AND ONLY IF {math lingo} the language includes recognition that Israel is a sovereign Jewish state and that any agreement must create a multi-national force to ensure secure borders?
ANNNND... how can his organization not know that Israel's enemies just love calling it a TS"Solution" rather than a two state plan, because to them it's just Final Solution 2.0? I asked if he could understand that my readers thought that word dishonors the memories of Jewish holocaust victims?
That conversation and a few others with the Organized Jewish Community (OJC) lead me to conclude that, for all of their philanthropy and social services, and defense of Israel and our people, the OJC can't see the forest for the trees. It may turn out that our enemies have a clear advantage over us ... fundamentalism. For them, there is no , "Well, on the other hand...