1) The more focused point made - in the penultimate graf - is apparent enough, I don’t see the transparency, I don’t see that a cogent argument is made (in the linked article at JTA). It reflects a certain type of intramural appeal rather than an argument made in a transparent/cogent manner. I felt the caveats, in the antepenultimate graf, warranted emphasis, and yes, I rambled as well.

2) The prior commenter met my brief, descriptive comment with a rank dismissiveness and with presumption. I returned the favor. I’m not going to play the part of the supplicant in the face of such hostility. Further, such an indifference has been common in other fora applied to this very topic; the level of commentary surrounding this subject as been abysmal.

3) I’m not disappointed. It was an earlier comment that had not been published. That’s not a complaint (you have a right to publish what you wish and have a right to request that I don’t comment here), I was more simply putting some things in perspective.

You are welcome to clarify - but please do so in a couple of sentences, not an essay. I’ve said many times to others that the Z Word comments are not a surrogate blog.

Oh yes - “I additionally doubt my comment will be published here” - sorry to disappoint you.

Instead of patronizingly and dismissively presuming about what “some people just can’t handle” - people who are only interested in stomping their feet and calling Obama “a Muslim” (thanks for the guffaws though), a more genuine effort to engage might be attempted, at least initially. (And are you asking for the definition of “arrogating,” or are you asking what it is that is being arrogated? Given the sneers about name calling, stomping one’s feet and what one is incapable of handling, you might at least evidence a grammatic ability to formulate a question.)

As to my previous comment and description, I am referring to the discussions and contretemps that have developed around Durban II in general, but am also referring more specifically to the linked article. I’m fully prepared to defend that description on both scales, but 1) I doubt the willingness to more seriously engage in the first place, 2) I additionally doubt my comment will be published here (an original attempt in a nearby and related thread was not), and likewise, 3) have every reason to suspect any more serious and responsible attempt to engage will be met with mere dismissiveness, even if it is published.

As such and for brevity I’ll advance a single supportive note only, presently, and will focus that note on the linked piece. Two caveats however. Firstly as pertains to Ms. Gaer’s piece, there are several things to be recommended in her commentary and obviously enough (I would hope, despite my stomping and other neanderthalish inclinations) I do not remotely seek to impugn Ms. Gaer’s personal integrity in the least. Secondly, without bringing into view the surrounding discussions and brouhaha (relevant to Durban II, I’m familiar with Bayefsky and Phillips as well as JPost articles and discussions, in addition to JTA pieces, I have not read Glick), the general discussion will necessarily be truncated, will be incomplete. I’m tempted to indulge other caveats still - the set of discussions requires some appreciable nuance - but will leave it at that presently.

Nonetheless and with those caveats now pointedly emphasized, I’ll briefly and generally note that with very sparse evidence and inadequate cogency and transparency indeed, Gaer ascribes solely to the administration and AJC what is not at all obviously the case. This seeming “insider” take on the matter is not at all as apparent as Gaer’s piece would suggest, not remotely so.

I’d likewise note Gaer’s piece lacks a certain “descriptive force” at notable junctures, given, for example, what actually manifested itself at Durban I. But that invokes a wider discussion and set of notes itself, so will high-light that fact at a general level only. Finally, my interest is not to merely bicker or quibble as I believe some extremely important issues are at stake, and not merely the more obvious ones. Finally again, when I indicate my confidence in AJC has “markedly” declined, I do not intend to connote something absolute, irreversible or even exaggerated. My trust in AJC remains relatively high, though I have been disappointed in aspects of the wider set of discussions. My trust remains relatively high in substantial part due to an appreciation for some of the more difficult and sensitive aspects of all that surrounds Durban II, from realpolitik and power dynamics at the U.N. and elsewhere, to sensitivities that I’m simply not privy to, such as those at inter-personal or inter-diplomatic levels. Even foot-stomping, name-calling neanderthals can be sensitive to such matters, at least on occasion. That’s my “brief” response, shorn of notes relevant to the background discussions, i.e. the give-and-take between David Harris, the AJC in general and the three commentators in question.

Not pretty and a bit sad. My trust in AJC has deteriorated markedly.