9/11 Truth Leader Teleconference + Oxysilver = Failure

Last year the NYC CAN ballot initiative was justifiably rejected by the city of New York for having been written without adequate legal preparation, a fact that came as no surprise to myself and others. Feeling quite certain that I could have determined the initiative's problems myself with a day at the library, I think we should be holding someone accountable for deciding to commit a lot of movement time and money to a lost cause.

Unfortunately, instead of accountability we got excuses. "The Turning Point" is a long winded denial of responsibility for the failure of the initiative followed by a big plan to essentially run the public face of the movement. The preliminary outlines of that plan can be found in the minutes of a recent "9/11 Truth Leaders Teleconference."

"NYC CAN will launch:

-a nationwide campaign to pass local resolutions calling for a new investigation, either through local advisory ballot initiatives, or by lobbying supportive city councils where advisory initiatives are not allowed. Other causes like troop withdrawal and impeachment gained and manifested strength through this kind of coordinated national campaign.

-a PR campaign employing former government, military and intelligence professionals and hiring a PR firm to ensure access to mainstream media and a perfectly crafted public image. Writing of grant proposals for this project, an for the nationwide ballot initiative campaign, is underway. We expect to raise significant sums of money to help make 2010 a watershed year for 9/11 accountability to fully enter the mainstream.

-sustained campaign lobbying new Manhattan DA to open an investigation into the destruction of the buildings.

-getting close to a civil suit brought by 9/11 families so that we will have court ordered subpoena power."

Now, such an initiative to put the movement's best foot forward sounds like a great idea. Then again, so did the ballot initiative. As with any group or action in this movement, we should consider the credibility of those involved. Good ideas are often easily undermined by one or more people who are either incompetent or intending to do damage.

"9/11 Truth Leader Teleconference: A coalition of 9/11 truth leaders and groups has been communicating on a monthly basis (via teleconference) about supporting critical campaigns to expose the U.S. government and media cover-up on what really happened."

Have you heard of this group? Do you know who is involved? Do you trust them to be the "reputable" face of the movement? I started digging and was very upset with what I found.

Jonathan Mark facilitates the teleconferences, published the minutes, and seems to be playing a prominent role in group. Mark runs FlybyNews and is an assistant organizer for Valley911Truth. He's also an affiliated vendor of Oxysilver. What is that and why is that a bad thing?

Oxysilver is a brand of 'colloidal silver', a snake-oil cure-all product marketed to the uneducated and more easily fooled. It claims to "eliminate the need for harmful vaccines and anti-biotics." The product is propped up by a rather typical pyramid scheme and has been widely discredited by the medical establishment. It has few established positive effects when utilized for specific purposes and a number of potential negative side effects. Those promoting it generally have little medical credibility.

Now, each of us is free to have internal contradictions. Jonathan Mark is free to make money lying to people while he promotes the truth in his spare time. However, I would hope that it's clear to most that we wouldn't want him to relate his questionable means of income and his 'truth' related political interests.

Well, unfortunately, he's done exactly that.

First of all, he posted an advertisement about Oxysilver to 911blogger (thankfully removed since I published this post). Alex Jones has advertisements for Oxysilver on his sites. But then AJ is not committed to fact based political promotion or the 9/11 truth movement. 911blogger is a site devoted to 9/11 truth and should not be used for personal gain or commercial promotion.

Second, and far more damning, Mark invited the head of the company, Len Horowitz (pictured above), to speak during a conference call!?! The first half of the minutes read like a commercial for the product.

"It was great hearing from Richard Gage, and we tried recapping a very detailed and broad ranging conversation-presentation by Len Horowitz. I wish I had this one recorded; his expertise and connecting the false flag operation of 9/11/01 to this current crisis of a created pandemic is important, but we also learned why his product, OxySilver, and other high quality silver hydrosols, work well in killing pathogens as H1N1.. and most any bacteria, virus, or fungus pathogen.

Dr. Len as clearly warning us of the nature of this "emergency" to pull off a vaccination campaign to spread the live virus and disease, (which could coincide with other crises in the economy and environment), all adding into incentives for the government to place us under martial law "to control the masses." Sounds crazy to me. How would it sound to members of our more skeptical target audience?"

Let's recap. A prominent member of a group that intends to represent the more reputable and credible aspects of the 9/11 truth movement has made it clear that he is comfortable taking advantage of that position for personal gain and also comfortable relating matters of fact with exploitive fallacy.

And what does that say about the "9/11 Truth Leaders" group? Nothing good.

Like the ballot initiative before it, we have people involved who can easily be used to paint a negative picture of the effort. Edgar Mitchell promoted alien encounters and Jonathan Mark wants you to drink silver. Both may genuinely care about 9/11 truth. Neither should play a prominent leadership role in the movement.

Bottom line: We can't let our desire to trust people and to assume the best of their intentions get in the way of a practical view of what is best for the public face of this movement.

Alex Jones - 'Birther' or 'Truther'?

This week we saw one of the most coordinated attacks on the movement yet from the mainstream media as those promoting the fallacy that Obama isn't a U.S. citizen were widely compared to those promoting 9/11 truth.

Is there any truth to the allegation that Obama is not a citizen? One might appeal to authority and argue that we should at least take the possibility seriously because seventeen members of congress support the notion in one way or another. Of course, that would be to ignore that they are all Republican and politically motivated. This became readily apparent when a resolution proclaiming Obama's birthplace to be Hawaii passed unanimously in the House. None of those involved were willing to stand behind the allegations.

In fact, it has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that Obama is a U.S. citizen. His birth certificate is readily available. Announcements of his birth in local Hawaiian newspapers have been recovered. And a birth certificate produced that appears to indicate that Obama was born in Kenya is a very clear forgery.

One might assume that media outlets are making a connection between these claims and 9/11 truth for no other reason than to characterize 'birthers' as also being "conspiracy theorists" and therefore having no credibility. It would also be possible that some are hoping to malign the movement due to recent progress.

However, there are now at least two justifiable reasons why this connection could be made. First, attorney and problematic 9/11 truth advocate Philip J. Berg filed a petition for review of Obama's citizenship with the U.S. Supreme Court. The court tossed out the complaint, but it is still pending review by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The Wikipedia entry on "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories" states that Berg is a "9/11 conspiracy theorist." And MediaMatters recently emphasized his relationship to the movement.

Second, Alex Jones, viewed by many as a prominent 9/11 truth movement figure, has recently promoted the 'birther' position by featuring a story on the subject at his website Prison Planet and having Berg as a guest on his show to talk about the issue. While Jones is more widely known for the extreme libertarian views he espouses on his daily radio show, many of those involved in 9/11 truth consider him to be one of the movement's most important advocates.

One might argue that if Alex Jones promotes 9/11 truth that the benefit of the exposure he is able to achieve outweighs the potential negative effect his other interests might have on the movement. Many argue that 'all press is good press.' However, in the case of Alex Jones, not only does this appear to be a foolish assumption, but his promotion of the 'birther' issue stands in stark contrast to the founding principles of 9/11 truth movement.

We have clearly seen in the past that Alex Jones is used by the mainstream media to undermine the movement, most recently when he was identified as being a potential influence on the Pittsburgh police shooter. One might argue that the movement gets this kind of treatment all the time, and yet you don't see less ideological figures like Richard Gage, for instance, being tied to violence or extremism. It is certainly what Alex Jones advocates that makes him, and by association the 9/11 truth movement, a victim of such negative publicity.

In the case of his support for the 'birther' issue we should identify an even more obvious problem. As it is clear that the issue is based in fallacy, how are we to take seriously Alex Jones' commitment to truth. Central to the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement is a strict adherence to the promotion of well founded, factual information. We make room for speculation within the realm of research. But prominent movement news is factual news. In contrast, we see here Alex Jones promoting an outright fallacy.

The 9/11 truth movement is a non-partisan effort. There should be no intent to restrict participation based on valid and tolerant political viewpoints. The problem with Alex Jones is certainly not his advocacy of libertarian values. However, it is absolutely antithetical to the core principles and integrity of the 9/11 truth movement to consider anyone promoting fallacy to be a leader. Many have expressed very strong concerns about the impact of Alex Jones on the movement. We can now add the promotion of blatant fallacy to that list.

For that reason I strongly encourage anyone concerned about this, supports and detractors alike, to seriously consider the role Alex Jones is playing in the movement at present, the impact his actions are having, and how we might, at the very least, encourage him to stick to the facts. And if he refuses to do so, we should consider distancing ourselves and our 9/11 related projects from him and his media.

Alex Jones can not be both a 'birther' and a 'truther.'

Avoiding Burnout - Is This A Movement?

I've been banging my head against a wall. My 'head' is the vision I have and share with others of a more skeptical and effective movement. And the 'wall' is the daunting task of working with people who may not agree on anything other than the movement's basic premises. This movement brings together people from very diverse ideological backgrounds. Within that spectrum my ideal may be positive or even important, but if my participation is depending on impractical expectations I'm walking into a wall.

But if I can have no expectations is this really a social movement at all?

With so little agreement among participants on certain principles of logic and strategy it seems at times that we might all be captains of our own vessel. I'm sure most would say they hoped for an impartial investigation. And there are media we can point to and definitively say are products of the movement. But we won't agree on which one's to promote. And we wouldn't agree on the top or bottom ten 9/11 facts. And very importantly, we might not agree on the intended outcome of all our actions.

We could say that the movement was defined by it's result. But that view ignores focus on the future and improvement. Could we all agree that we want the movement to be stronger, or reach more people in a positive way? What is stronger? Do we even agree on positive? I'm not sure we do.

There are certainly large and overlapping groups within the movement that subscribe to one of many approaches. There's the "Press For Truth" crowd, and the CD crowd, and the AJ crowd, and those who want all of them standing under one big tent. Each of these groups are sizable yet in many ways do not work well together. And who says they should? Some of what we find is total fallacy. Personally, I think that the "Press For Truth" approach is the most effective. But others disagree. And not all that disagreement is based on ignorance of strategy.

What is a social movement without agreed upon motivations, premises, and goals? That certainly presents a lot of problems if it's the case. We don't look unified and our difference can be used against us. The movement can be characterized by it's weakest links. We can become distracted trying to iron out those differences instead of addresses the issues.

Ignoring our differences also presents a lot of problems. As I've previously argued, the 'big tent' is not a viable option. We have no reason to include everything. But that implies some kind of process for exclusion that does not seem to exist. And that's a primary reason why I've been banging my head against a wall.

Just because there are many definitions of this movement doesn't mean that every definition is valid. But there is little anyone can do to exclude what is most damaging or counter-productive. I've personally spent as much time publicly promoting the truth as I have countering fallacy within the movement. There have been a few salient victories. But overall, one of the main reasons for my feeling burned out at times has been my feeling that it's not possible to change the behavior or thinking of people with very different and sometimes invalid views.

I have a clear picture in my head of what would work best, but feel ever more removed from any power to act on that understanding. And feeling that way I get closer to just throwing in the towel.

However, two key insights prevent my quitting in frustration. Central to both of them is the basic fact that those in power very obviously consider our efforts to be a threat.

First, those attempting to obscure the truth want us to feel frustrated and burnout. A good amount of the division I mentioned above is due to intentional disruption. I may not know exactly how much of it, but there is no doubt that divide and conquer gets the job done. This movement is highly subject to infiltration. Most of those involved remain fairly oblivious to that fact, and it's generally unproductive to speculate about the intentions of others. But that doesn't negate the fact that there are many among us who are either keeping track of our efforts or trying to steer us in unproductive directions.

Second, the extent to which those in power by way of their mainstream media attempt to undermine our efforts very clearly demonstrates that at least some of what we do is a threat to them. At times it seems that they consider us more a threat that we might think we are. On a regular basis, seemingly irrespective of movement progress, we find that the MSM launches into a coordinated attempt to malign those involved in this effort. If we were truly irrelevant, we wouldn't find ourselves so often the subject of attack.

And so in some sense, whether or not what we have here is cohesive social movement, the power structure we are trying to impact seems to think it is. That doesn't necessarily make me all that much less frustrated about all the problems I see in this movement. But it does provide a basis upon which I can feel that all these disparate interest groups are presenting a common challenge to those who maintain the secrets we work to uncover.

"We Demand Transparency" Conference - Big Tent Failure

The following is an update to my previous post.

What was the "Real Change and Transparency Conference" has split into two separate and very different anniversary events in NYC.

"Real Change" Conference

"We Demand Transparency" Conference

Sander Hicks had tried to facilitate cooperation between Luke and Les. In the process their previous problems with one another were scrubbed from the internet. You can still find that episode of the movement's history archived here:

Original WeAreChange "Declaration of NY911Truth" - Jamieson v Rudkowki scrubbed

That cooperation appears to have been tenuous and broke down resulting in two separate events. And these events are very different. One appears to be reasonably credible in it's present form and the other does not.

While I have my differences with WAC and Luke, the "Real Change" Conference is BY FAR the more credible of the two events. Those organizing it had asked Bill Deagle to attend. However, it appears that upon discovering that he was a very controversial figure, they took him off the speakers list.

In contrast, the "We Demand Transparency" event has been adding people to their speakers list that are either divisive figures in the movement or who have undermined the movement in one way or another. I nearly jumped out of my chair finding that Cindy Sheehan, Donna Marsh O'Connor and Steve Alten had been added to the list of those participating.

Were Cindy Sheehan to attend, she would be participating in an event with people such as Barrett who defended those such as Webster Tarpley who called her a liar during the Kennebunkport Warning fiasco. And it was Les who allowed Tarpley to speak during the "Ready for Mainstream" conference where he labeled many committed movement figures as cointelpro agents.

Donna Marsh O'Connor, the mother of a 9/11 victim, signed the 2008 Declaration of Standards and Strategies which was largely a response to the "Ready for Mainstream" conference. It would be very unfortunate if anyone used her participation to impugn her judgment or character.

And Steve Alten seems to be more an opportunist than a sincerely committed participant in the movement. For a review of critical opinions of Steve Alten and The Shell Game have a look at this thread.

Barrett, Ranke, and Alten. Three people who I believe have done more harm than good for this movement. And all of this coordinated by Les Jamieson, responsible for the "Ready for Mainstream" conference. And Sheehan, O'Connor, and Sunjata. Three people who deserve a great deal of respect and should not in any way subject themselves to the potentially negative connotations of their participation or the bad press that might result.

How to respond? I would highly recommend two things. First, assuming the lineup remains reputable, that people in NYC attend the WAC event and not the Jamieson event. And second, that people who share any of my concerns make them known to the events organizers and those attending who may not recognize why their participation could have unfortunate consequence for them.

The Real Change and Transparency Conference

To my surprise, Sander Hicks was able to negotiate a truce between Les Jamieson and Luke Rudkowski, and the three of them are organizing the upcoming anniversary event in NYC. By itself this knowledge set me on edge with visions of Eustice Mullins and Mark Dice (promoted by Les and Luke respectively) representing the movement. My fears of a big tent event were recently confirmed when it was announced that they are considering inviting Kevin Barrett and CIT to participate. A bit of history ...

Back in 2007 we saw Les Jamieson organize the "Ready for Mainstream" conference in NYC. Some of us who had prior experience with Les knew that things would likely get ugly. Our concerns were met with skepticism as many outside of NYC didn't really understand our lack of trust in him. Les Jamieson, the director of NY911Truth now has a well established history of repeatedly promoting the worst this movement has to offer and being unresponsive to criticism and creative input. So it was no surprise to some of us when Jim Fetzer, Webster Tarpley, and Alfred Webre showed up on the tentative speaker list.

And the result? Tarpley decided to take the opportunity to launch a counter attack against those who were critical of his position on the Kennebunkport Warning, and directly accused prominent and committed activists, Cosmos, Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Micheal Woolsey, and Jon Gold, of being intelligence agents. His actions were no simple error in judgment and directly undermined the movement.

And I personally attended a lecture by Webre in which he suggested that turnout was low because the audience was being subjected to directed energy weapons. At the time, neither Les nor Hicks, who was hosting the event, had any kind of critical response. And no apologies were offered after the fact. While there were very few people in attendance, the event had quite an impact on the movement.

A few days later an article for the Weekly Standard was written that publicly exposed Webre's claim about directed energy weapons. We might like to think that the occasional excess in speculation won't bite us in the ass, but this example demonstrates the possible risks involved. There will always be people who dismiss our concerns, but it's very important that we offer them no credible reasons. And putting people on stage that are totally freakin nuts would be one of those reasons.

Soon after the event many people in the movement came forward to renounce the behavior of Webster Tarpley, the Kennebunkport Warning, and Les Jamison's insulated and inept management of NY911Truth. The TruthMove Declaration of 9/11 Truth Standards and Strategies was motivated largely by wanting to respond to that event as a flagrant example of intentionally divisive behavior. The conduct of speakers and the acceptance of that behavior by the events coordinators was totally unacceptable. Many of those who Tarpley had called agents, and others inspired by the event's negative impact on the movement came together to fashion a statement critical of the 'big tent' approach. A movement about truth does exclude certain notions and the people who cling to them beyond reason.

Presently we see this new event taking shape under the direction of people who, in the opinion of many, do not have a solid track record when it comes to organizing and representing the movement. And they have invited controversial figures to attend that are divisive within the movement, have a history of disruptive behavior, may serve to undermine the credibility of other speakers, and do not in my eyes appear committed to fact over speculation.

Kevin Barrett actively defends the 'big tent', while CIT certainly benefits from it. Both demonstrate that they consider it productive to promote information and speculation that is not essential and largely damaging to this movement. It seems intuitive that unity would be positive. But that unity can not violate the founding principles of the movement. A truth movement does not promote fallacy. Barrett and CIT do. And now, once again, they are provided a prominent venue with which to potentially extend that fallacy.

I can't know before hand exactly what will happen. But then again, based on past experience, I have a fairly solid track record anticipating drama. I hope very much that this event is productive and results in no animosity or bad press. However, I am stating for the record here that I consider these outcomes to be far more likely with Barrett and CIT attending.

If you have similar concerns please contact those involved and let them know how you feel about the decisions they are making.

WeAreChangeNewJersey

This week we saw the announcement of a new chapter of WeAreChange in New Jersey. Before reading what I have to say about it I recommend having a look at their site.

When people start a political action group they are generally concerned with how to deliver a message to a target audience. Within any social movement there should also be a concern for how the group's actions will reflect on others involved. With the launch of a website, people have near total control over how they convey their values and priorities and which audience they will reach as a result.

So then, what did WeAreChangeNJ decide was going to be their message and audience? And how will the present content of their site represent the movement, regardless of their intentions? The site is sparse at this point and will likely grow. But introductions are very important in forming opinions of your orientation, intentions, and competence.

First of all, a quick review of post titles was immediately unsettling to me. "Bahai Faith = NWO Religion" "Glenn Beck Is An Operative" "Superbowl Symbolism" "What Is Synchromysticism?" "Spice Girls Are Illuminati Tools" "The 9/11 Stargate Conspiracy" Now, here's my question. What do these titles suggest to the average reader who knows little about the movement? That we are paranoid? That we are intolerant of people's faith? That we are obsessed with symbolism and coincidence? With such outrageous titles many people will certainly turn away before deciding to see if they are just bad at writing titles. In this case I think the average reader would be turned off.

If we turn to looking at what the site seems to be promoting, we find a good deal of focus on the NWO conspiracy and "synchromystisim." They also seem to be getting along well with CrotchShotRadio. Here's their tagline:

"The Crotch Shot Radio Show is on a mission, wait wait, a fucking pilgrimage, fuck that. On a fucking movement, that features the loudest spick of Brook-Nam, Louie Bee Are You animal enough to enter our newly created Forest Of Hate? This is no bullshit radio, Doing Preemptive strikes on bullshit producers. Instead of Operation “Shock and Awe”, we are conducting Operation ” Fuck and you.” No fucking Coalition forces needed."

"Preemptive Strikes"? "Forest of Hate"? Racial epithets? I don't want those things associated with 9/11 truth or myself in any way. I may recognize that the intention could possibly be some kind of hip edginess. Most people would not.

And then there is "synchromysticism." Here's an exemplary post on the subject. "9/11/2001: A Space Odyssey - Another synchromystic post about 9/11, exploring the buildings surrounding Ground Zero and tying them to the stargate ritual/alien contact/cosmic consciousness." And here's a rough definition of the concept. "Synchromysticism is a state of mind in which dynamic context is attributed to phenomena, allowing patterns, themes and insight to arise out of a web of connections."

Fascinating. But that doesn't sound like it has anything to do with 9/11 truth or more generally with demonstrating to people that they are committed to logic and justice.

That bring us back to what they are conveying and how people may respond. Here's my take on it. I think that the site they have up will primarily appeal to a small minority of those who share their interests and priorities. It will also be useful to those who would like to paint the 9/11 truth movement in a negative light. I do not think that the site offers any significant motivation to take action, read about facts, or contribute to the movement in a constructive way. And it certainly frustrates participants like myself who would very much like to see only the best we have to offer promoted by groups associated with the movement.

In my opinion the best thing that WeAreChangeNJ could do is pull the site, stop what they are doing, and read a few books about promotion, marketing, education and political action, before they get back work. Countering the 'big tent' means asserting that every demonstration of intent to promote our cause is not necessarily welcome. There are both effective and detrimental ways to promote 9/11 truth. And I don't think what we see here helps at all.

Taking Out The Trash - "Jews did 9/11"

I know of no credible evidence whatsoever linking anyone who is Jewish to the attacks on 9/11. Neither have I seen any highly convincing evidence that Israelis played a significant role. And yet you can't do a search for information on the subject of the attack without running into websites, videos, blogs, and books suggesting that Israel, the Jews, or a global Zionist conspiracy was responsible.

The quality of discussion on these topics certainly varies from intentional disinformation to those who honestly while, in my opinion, misguidedly feel that certain topics are worthy of long term academic review or broad public attention. The quality of fact varies just as much. At one extreme we have bigotry and at the other very fact based interest in the actions of the Mossad. Both are a small minority relative to movement participants and the wider public that this movement wants to reach. So it's important for us to be clear with ourselves and with one another about where we draw certain moral and strategic lines.

Disinformation

There is no doubt in my mind that a good deal of the anti-Semitism one can find at the fringes of the movement is intentional disruption. I make this claim based first on knowing that our government is investigating and infiltrating anti-war groups far less challenging to the system than we can be, and second that anti-Semitism has been quite effectively used to undermine our credibility and would therefore be an obvious way to do further damage. Eric Williams and his role in undermining the Arizona Conference is a telling example.

From my own perspective Eric Williams came out of no where and published a series of books about deep politics on topics such as 9/11 and 7/7. After having established some measure of credibility in the movement he took on a role coordinating a 9/11 truth conference in Arizona with other sincere movement activists. Then, just a few weeks before the conference, he published a book about Holocaust denial. The result was highly damaging to the event, those involved, and the movement itself. I have little doubt that Williams meant to undermine the movement. And I sincerely hope that's not true. I haven't heard much about him since.

Bigotry

Of course, a good deal of the anti-Semitism we find is simply home grown bigotry. Between %15 and %20 of the U.S. population have strong anti-Semitic views. And that's based on self reporting which necessarily involves a fair amount of dishonest response. The numbers are significantly higher in other Western countries.

For that reason we should expect to find those with anti-Semitic views in most social groups unrelated to Jewish culture. And if that is the case, it is certainly unfair to point to that overly vocal minority in this movement and suggest that it represents our cause. To do so would demonstrate a good deal of bias toward the movement as one could point that finger at just about any other group.

The point here is that, yes, there are people with anti-Semitic views who also concern themselves with 9/11 truth. But to suggest that these people in any way represent the movement is totally unjustified relative to the great majority of us who find these views abhorrent.

Essential facts?

The final group are those who have done research into the potential role of Israeli intelligence in the 9/11 attacks. There certainly are legitimate facts that support such speculation. And it would be irresponsible to suggest that critique of Israel itself is anti-Semitic. Academic freedom is an essential priority to me. And yet if those facts don't add up to much while they allow for significant misunderstanding a good deal of caution is necessary.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and state a controversial opinion of mine. I believe that much, and certainly not all, of this "honest research" is founded is subtle forms of anti-Semitism. It's not what those involved would ever consider any kind of overt hatred. To put it as plainly as possible, it's comes down to not caring how Jewish people might feel about how information, speculation and opinion is presented. You might call it a cultural insensitivity.

I'm not talking about avoiding the truth because it would hurt someones feelings. But I simply can't find logical cause to focus much attention on a concern that offers the movement very little benefit while potentially insulting those who would otherwise support our cause.

I am NOT saying that everyone curious about this or concerned for a time with exploring the details is a bigot. I'm saying, based on the lack of strong evidence, that extended focus on the issue and its public promotion play into the hands of those who would like to undermine the movement, has the potential to alienate an entire cultural group from the movement, and is therefore not justified merely based on claims of academic rigor.

So this is more than anything else, and as always, about sticking to promoting the best facts we have. Sincere research into the potential role of Israel can certainly be conducted in a culturally sensitive manner. And yet that research does not appear to be very important to the movement's progress while certainly presenting some serious problems.