What’s Driving the Jihad Against J Street
An interesting article by James Besser in New York Jewish Week asks why the Jewish American establishment is driven into such a frenzy by J Street, when it’s hardly the first dovish Israel-focused group in history:
But the reaction is far out of proportion to the Jewish “establishment’s” response to other dovish groups. I remember when Americans for Peace Now (APN) appeared on the scene (yes, I’ve been doing this job that long), and the reaction from the big guys was barely detectable. The Israel Policy Forum (IPF) and a predecessor group, Project Nishma, started out with some big name, mainstream Jewish leaders, so you’d think the pro-Israel establishment would have had fits, but I heard almost no reaction. Brit Tzedek v’Shalom was started by a former Knesset member, but its arrival caused barely a ripple.
So why J Street? Why all this fury? More to the point, why do so many find this group so threatening? [...] I suspect the answer has to do with something else: J Street is the first group on the left that’s dared to take on the pro-Israel lobby where it really matters: at the critical intersection of campaign finance and congressional lobbying.
I think that’s part of the story. I think another part of the story has to do with the dramatic rightward lurch in Israeli politics. Back when Ariel Sharon announced his Gaza “disengagement” plan in order to head-off international pressure for Israel to start negotiating on the Arab Peace Initiative, I don’t recall very many American Jews—including quite hawkish American Jews—being sympathetic to the far-right current in Israeli politics that denounced his move as a craven sellout. Hawks and doves disagreed about how to characterize Sharon: Was this a bold gesture of peace, or was it a a bold tactical gambit aimed at securing Israel’s grip on West Bank settlements. But everyone agreed that Netanyahu was playing to extremist sentiments. And now Netanyahu’s running the show, and the main partner in his coalition government is an anti-Arab demagogue coming from an even more extremist posture.
Meanwhile, neither American public opinion in general nor American Jewish public opinion in particular has become more hawkish or right-wing over the past five years. Quite the reverse. Obviously, this is going to be a problem for any group that wants to both be seen as “speaking for” American Jews and also aligned with the policy agenda of the Israeli government. It’s a period of real risk in which many Jews, and many politicians who are interested in what Jews think, might see their allegiances shift away from an establishment that’s come to be dominated by neocon-type views that relatively few American Jews actually hold. Under the circumstances, I can see why there’s a real effort to preemptively discredit a group that stands for fairly conventional things—support of a two-state solution, opposition to settlements, belief that preemptive war has not been a boon to American or Israeli interests in the region, etc.—at a time when Israeli politics is lurching in a weird and disturbing direction.
63 Responses to “What’s Driving the Jihad Against J Street”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 30th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
This is wrong in two ways.
First, there’s little lurch to the right in practice. All the previous Israeli governments increased settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, including the Labor governments repeatedly. Bigotry – both settlements and talking up the ‘demographic threat’ as a prelude to further expulsions – has been widespread – bipartisan in the US sense – in Israel for quite some time. Indeed, these features are widespread in jewish civil society in Israel, and party politics cannot exclude them.
Second, arguably IPF and Peace Now are not as left as they may seem. As I have repeatedly said, MJ Rosenberg is a keep-the-settlers-as-part-of-a-negotiated-deal kind of guy, and you can easily find instances of Peace Now pressuring Palestinian leaders to permanently accept Jewish settlements in and around Jerusalem. They’re more Peace-and-Settlements Now, really. They were never much of a threat to AIPAC and co, while on J-Street the jury is still out.
Finally, I don’t think you can underestimate the change that the internet etc is having, so that a certain sort of media gate-keeping favourable to Israel may be becoming weakened. Its in those circumstances that J-Street may be producing a but more panic.
March 30th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
I think the whole brouhaha over Mearsheimer and Walt finally gave a lot of people the courage not to be cowed by the wanton and baseless accusations that inevitably follow even the mildest criticism of Israel. The Lobby is scared shitless that more and more high-profile journalists will follow Joe Klein’s lead and tell the ADL to stuff it where the sun don’t shine. And thus the wanton and baseless attacks on J-Street.
March 30th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
First, there’s little lurch to the right in practice.
They’ve only just had elections. Give them a little time.
March 30th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Seems like a lot of liftish Israeli groups or pro-I think Matt’s on to something big here. Palestinian groups are little more than semi-organized advocacy outfits that can put together the occasional protest or letter-writing campaign, or student exchange. In terms of playing the Capitol Hill game AIPAC and Co. always ran rings around them.
(As an aside, this is why it has always been so inane to worry about the evil Jewish cabal supposedly controlling the US government. Lobbying is a skill and AIPAC got really good at it. So did the NRA and AARP and the Chamber of Commerce. And the Miami Cubans. Most of what AIPAC does is a matter of public record as required by law. If you wann beat them, do what they do better than they do it.)
March 30th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Jesus, that should have read
I think Matt’s on to something big here. Seems like a lot of leftish Israeli groups or pro-Palestinian groups are little more than semi-organized advocacy outfits that can put together the occasional protest or letter-writing campaign, or student exchange.
Got bit by the Yglesias editing bug.
March 30th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Israel used unmanned drones to attack clandestine Iranian convoys in Sudan that were attempting to smuggle rockets into Gaza, Britain’s Sunday Times newspaper reported.
The paper said that western diplomats confirmed that Israel attacked the Iranian truck convoys in late January and the first week of February in the remote Sudan desert, just outside the Red Sea town of Port Sudan.
The convoys had been tracked by agents from Mossad, Israel’s overseas intelligence agency, the report added.
The Sudanese government said this week it was investigating the possibility that Israel was behind the deadly air strikes, but so far had found no proof.
Foreign ministry spokesman Ali Sadiq said there were two separate bombing raids against smugglers, killing about 40 people.
The Sunday Times said that had the rockets been delivered to Hamas, the militant Islamic group that controls Gaza, they would have raised the stakes in the conflict with Israel.
It quoted defence sources as saying the convoys were carrying Fajr-3 rockets, which have a range of more than 40 miles (65 kilometres), and were split into sections to be smuggled through tunnels into Gaza from Egypt.
“They built the Fajr in parts so it would be easy to smuggle them into Gaza, then reassemble them with Hamas experts who learnt the job in Syria and Iran,” a source told the paper.
The main reason for using drones instead of manned aircraft to attack was that a convoy forms a “slippery” target, a source said.
“When you attack a fixed target, especially a big one, you are better off using jet aircraft. But with a moving target with no definite time for the move UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) are best, as they can hover extremely high and remain unseen until the target is on the move,” the source said.
March 30th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
I don’t know the details of their political maneuvaring on the Hill, but I can’t take the group seriously when the effectively endorse blood libel:
http://theaterjblogs.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/j-street-letter-of-support-on-discussing-7jc/
March 30th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
I think the response is due to the fact that J Street has made no bones about the fact that they are trying to stage a sort of intra-lobby coup. That includes cornering the brass knuckles money and influence franchise, as Matt mentions. So of course they are going to face a strong push-back. Aipac’s bread and butter business is being threatened.
Of course, even if J Street successfully takes over, that would just restore the dominant voice in the lobby to the very pro-Israel, milquetoast, go-along, center-left perspective that was not foreign to Aipac itself a few short years ago. Since, as others have mentioned, Israeli expansionism has occurred under Israeli governments of both the left and right in Israel, not much will change. We’ll just get expansionist Zionism “with a human face”, with more crying mixed in with the shooting.
Personally, I find most of these intra-lobby debates tiresome. It’s Jews arguing with Jews about Jews who say things about Jews who debate which Jews are Good Jews and which Jews are Bad Jews. They are just as obsessive and self-absorbed as always.
March 30th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
That wouldn’t cause any problem for your support for J-Street then, since they don’t support blood libel either.
March 30th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
I am shocked, shocked that there would be gun-running within the lawless chaos that is Sudan. Someone should complain!
March 30th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Otto,
Jews taking a position on a play that implies a blood libel as truth is tantamount to an endorsement (see my use of the word “effectively”).
March 30th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Shit, that should have said “Jews NOT taking a position…”
March 30th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Jews taking a position on a play that implies a blood libel as truth is tantamount to an endorsement
Well, thank goodness then that only the most embarrassing hacks would claim that the play implies a blood libel.
March 30th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Re otto
Mr. otto considers that any group that is not in favor of the Government of Israel going out of business is indistinguishable from the Likud or AIPAC. Obviously then, J Street = Likud = AIPAC to the ottos of the world.
The main problem with J Street is that they are operating under the assumption that the road to peace is paved with Israeli concessions. Apparently, they believe, in the absence of evidence, that the Hamas folks are not serious people and that their stated position that they will never recognize Israel is just a negotiating ploy. In that regard, they resemble the folks in Great Britain, like the supporters of Neville Chamberlain, who thought that Hitler was not a serious person and that his rhetoric was just hot air.
March 30th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Hamas is Hitler. J Street is Chamberlain. Talk about trivializing the holocaust. Good work there SLC.
March 30th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
freddybak, they do not endorse the blood libel.
They said that a theatre company should not be censored for staging a controversial play about Gaza. Below is the line on which the charge of antisemitism is based, a mother speaking to her daughter:
“tell her I look at one of their children covered in
blood and what do I feel? tell her all I feel is happy it’s not her.”
And then she eats the baby! Or not.
Look, that line from the play isn’t a metaphor. In the Gaza attack, we all saw footage of actual Palestinian children covered in actual blood. That is what the play is talking about. It would be nice if there weren’t really any dead Palestinian children, if that were just a lie about ritual cannibalism made up by antisemites, but the bombing really did happen and it needs to be talked about.
freddybak, you are trying to suppress legitimate debate. If you want to argue that the attack on Gaza condemned by the play was perfectly well justified then do so, but don’t try to tell us that only an antisemite would disagree.
March 30th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Ian,
I think there needs to be a new rule about debate…something along the lines of the first person who accuses their opponent of attempting to “silence” debate loses. I can’t think of how many times the people who are actually attempting to do the silencing are the ones throwing out the accusations of silencing.
But more to the point: I suggest you google the play and see how many people who were adamantly opposed to the Gaza bombing condemned this play as Straight The Fuck Up Anti-Semitic. Here’s Jefferey Goldberg (I can see the seething Yglesias commenters now!) debating his friend who actually made the call to show the play.
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/03/ari_roth.php
The play is nothing short of anti-Semitic propaganda, one’s opinion on the Gaza bombing notwithstanding. And any Jewish Group that fails to see it as such should not be taken seriously.
March 30th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Ah, yes. When you’re a minor internet commenter hack, you need to call in backup from a gigantic professional hack like Jeffrey Goldberg.
March 30th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
SLC: speaking of Hitler, you’ve recently advocated genocide yourself. (As Curtis Lemay would say, make a parking lot out of Iran.” Note: that’s 70 million people dead, plus more people killed in countries downwind of Iran)
SLC wants to kill more people than Hitler did. Maybe he’s changed his mind. I hope so. Care to retract? Apologize?
March 30th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Ah yes. I actually have a professional day job where I spend most of my time and energy.
March 30th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Yes, me too. Yet somehow I don’t feel the need to cite one of the most embarrassing “journalists” in the United States.
March 30th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Jeffrey Goldberg::
Hey, I wonder what this guy’s opinion is about some play? I bet it’s FASCINATING!
March 30th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Re Ian
SLC wants to kill more people than Hitler did. Maybe he’s changed his mind. I hope so. Care to retract? Apologize?
Not a chance.
Re Bullsmith
As the late Johnny Cochran would say, the difference between Hamas and Hitler is that the latter had the power to carry out his designs and the former doesn’t.
March 30th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
wsx, good points all. you win.
March 30th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
freddybak
Goldberg says the play is borderline blood libel because it “associates Jews with the spilling of human blood.” But the play is about Gaza, about blood spilled by the armed forces of an officially Jewish state.
It’s not the play that’s associating Jews with the spilling of human blood, it’s the IDF. And damn right both you and Goldberg are stifling debate. This an eight page play by an established and prolific playwright. If you don’t like it say so, but slamming it as so anti-Semitic as to demand banning based on second hand say-so is nothing but an attempt to censor criticism.
March 30th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
And J Street is really comparable to Neville Chamberlain? Sure thing SLC.
March 30th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
“…the difference between Hamas and Hitler is that the latter had the power to carry out his designs and the former doesn’t.”
Um, doesn’t that make all the difference in the world? How can you “appease” a group that has no power to execute its wishes? By your logic we should be dropping bombs on David Irving.
March 30th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
freddybak:
I am not trying to silence you, nor do I think that you are trying to silence me. You were attempting to silence J-street by calling them an evil organization. That’s not wrong in principle; if they actually are an evil organization then they should be ignored. So that’s what we’re doing — talking about whether or not J-street is an antisemitic Jewish lobby group.
I included a link to the play itself, on the basis of which I formed my opinion. Other than the line I mentioned, what else about the play offended you? I don’t mind you linking Goldberg, but you would make a stronger case if you pointed out specifically what parts of the play you think are “Straight The Fuck Up Anti-Semitic.” I’ve only heard people critique that one quote I mentioned earlier, but perhaps you’re aware of something else, or perhaps I was misinterpreting the quote.
By the way, I hate usage of the blood libel, and I do believe that it continues to lurk in the background of a lot of racist thinking. Here’s a comment thread where I call a guy out for using the blood libel. I just don’t see this line of the play as an instance of the blood libel. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes blood is just blood.
March 30th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Re Bullsmith
J Street is, indeed, comparable to many of the folks who supported Chamberlains’ actions. The only concession that will satisfy Hamas is the Government of Israel agreeing to go out of business. Mr. ottos’ complaint relative to J Street is that they are not prepared, at this time, to advocate such a concession.
March 30th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
SLC:
As Curtis Lemay would say, make a parking lot out of Iran.
(killing >70 million people)
Ian:
SLC wants to kill more people than Hitler did. Maybe he’s changed his mind. I hope so. Care to retract? Apologize?
SLC:
Not a chance…As the late Johnny Cochran would say, the difference between Hamas and Hitler is that the latter had the power to carry out his designs and the former doesn’t.
In your own words sir, the only difference between you and Hitler is that the latter had the power to carry out his designs and the former doesn’t.
March 30th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
All this talk of Chamberlain reminds me of one of his countrywomen, Melanie Phillips, who writes today:
It is only if the true history of the Middle East is understood that certain things become inescapably clear: the scale of the monumental lie that has been so assiduously promulgated about the nature of this dispute, a lie which is now generally assumed in the west to be true and which is driving the genocidal hysteria against Israel; the fact that the fundamental cause of this tragic impasse was the repeated British appeasement of Arab terror, illegality and injustice, a policy which continues to this very day; and the immorality and absurdity therefore of believing that today’s two-state solution – which among other things means that the ‘progressives’ who support it thus support the ethnic cleansing of all Jews from the putative state of Palestine – would be anything other than a Final Solution for the Jews of Israel, not to mention an incalculable victory for the forces waging war against the free world.
Here is one of the most prominent British “friends” of Israel accusing advocates of the two-state solution as supporting ethnic cleansing and the Final Solution. It is precisely to counter this type of mindless stupidity that organizations like J-Street are needed.
March 30th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Re Ian
Exactly so, just as Mr. otto and Mr. Arnold Evans don’t have the power to force the Government of Israel to go out of business.
March 30th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Re ndm
Ms. Phillips is a whackjob who is an evolution denier and a global warming denier. The State of Israel does not need “friends” like her and John Hagee.
March 30th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
slc -
Melanie Phillips certainly is an “evolution denier and a global warming denier,” but she remains one of the most high profile British “friends” of Israel today. Yet her peers, who so readily join in her acccusations of anti-Semitism and blood libel, never seem to find the opportunity to condemn her.
March 30th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Ian,
I appreciate that neither of us are trying to silence eachother. As I mentioned to wsx, I am not as articulate in these matters as others, so I will again point to then Goldberg link when asked why I think the play is anti-Semitic. The one line discussed earlier does bring up images associated with the blood libel. Goldberg’s debate with Ari Roth goes into detail about other arguments on both sides of this. Hell, even Ari Roth, the guy making the call to go ahead and show the play, admits that it smells of anti-Semitism. Goldberg seems to take the Striaght the Fuck Up side. He makes specific arguments about why that is the case way better than I could.
I don’t think J-Street is evil. What I said was if they want to be taken seriously by people to whom Israel’s survival and legitimacy is important, they are going to have to do more than “not take a position on” a play that is(obviously not in everyone’s eyes) anti-Semitic. I don’t call them an anti-Semitic Jewish group. I just call them unserious in that they fail to see anti-Semitism when it stares them in the face. To call them out on this is not stifling debate. To tell me that I can’t call them out on this (and that is not what you, Ian, are doing, but others are), would be stifling debate.
Bullsmith – No one is calling for the banning of anything. But obviously I am not allowed to call something like I see it without being accused of silencing debate.
March 30th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
The degree to which neocons are incapable of making historical analogies that don’t involve WWII is really quite comical. In their world, every foreign leader who they’ve decided needs to be overthrown is Hitler. Every foreign leader who supports American military actions is Winston Churchill. And every foreign leader who opposes American military actions is Neville Chamberlain.
March 30th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
I think the backlash is coming particularly from AIPAC. AIPAC enjoys its spot in the sun, cozied as it is with Christian Apocalyptos and weapons manufacturers. J Street is not only encroaching on AIPAC’s turf, but also challenging its chosen placement in the American corporate-political soup. AIPAC has a big mouth, which it regrettably uses to speak for all Jews everywhere, so when it whines about J Street, the sound carries.
A second factor is, I think, that the big Jewish names in the mainstream media–at least those who specialize specifically in Israeli issues–are disproportionally right-wing. The American and British media have a true dearth (especially relative to the Israeli media) of left-Zionist perspectives, which seems to lead to a lack of nuance in the American discourse on Israel (as evidenced by certain comments above).
March 30th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
freddy, I seem to have misunderstood your position and in no way do I want to stifle your voice. Of course you can and should criticize the play all you want. Might help the debate if you used some direct references, rather than just linking to Goldberg and citing his chosen quote, but that’s up to you. Your points are certainly yours to make. On point, the play’s clearly one-sided, and not subtle about it, but that doesn’t make it illegitimate to at least be in the mix of discussion, and that quote doesn’t make it blood libel. The fact that there’s kids soaked in blood isn’t especially unheard of in a tragedies, especially a war drama. No need for blood libel framing to make it an effective anti-war narrative device. And really, how do you do Gaza without dead kids anyway? Not saying the play’s any good, mind you.
A serious question, how much of the anti-Apartheid movement was really rooted in unacknowledged hatred for the Dutch? Anti-Semitism is real and widespread and should be called out, absolutely. But there’s a lot of outrage that’s only based on the plight of the people in Gaza.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Considering that history began for Matt in 2003, it’s no surprise that he misses why the Jewish establishment so dislikes J Street.
They continually advocate positions untenable for Israelis to take.
If you were alive from 93-00 you would have seen the Oslo process’ long death. From Arafat preaching Jihad in South Africa to doing the same in Arabic constantly, it’s a little rich for J streeters — spoiled book-educated wonks — to lecture them to give up even more security.
i don’t know why i bother with this blog.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Re ba
Hey, hang in there. Don’t leave the comment section here to shitheads like Mr. otto, Mr. Arnold Evans, etc. I have a lot of fun sticking it to them.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Re ndm
Yet her peers, who so readily join in her acccusations of anti-Semitism and blood libel, never seem to find the opportunity to condemn her.
I just did.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
ba, I’m sure that you weren’t reading Yglesias back when he first got blogospheric notice, but he was not at all friendly to the Palestinians. Check this out.
If he’s very critical of Israel now, perhaps it’s because the Israeli government’s behavior has got more outrageous. Forcing the population of southern Lebanon to flee and shelling UN schools in Gaza are the sort of thing that alienates a country’s supporters.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
SLC lobs this howler: “The State of Israel does not need “friends” like her and John Hagee.”
The state of Israel sucks John Hagee’s dick on a regular basis, via AIPAC. He was at their policy conference in 2007.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
fuck those Jews
March 30th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
rock on wsx
post re Goldberg was truly hilarious
March 30th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
spokeytown Says:
March 30th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
The one thing that contemporary Jews never consider is that the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish state might actually be bad for the Jews.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Matt W, thanks for the link to that vintage Yglesias post! Not only does he sound like a dick, but he also comes out with a classic Yglesias blooper: “Someday soon, maybe King Hussein can oppress the Palestinians. I am really oppress them.” Apparently being in school didn’t focus his mind on grammar any.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
“The one thing that contemporary Jews never consider is that the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish state might actually be bad for the Jews.”
Um, many do, publicly and vocally. You may find in your life that people don’t really like it when you describe their entire ethnic group as an undifferentiated whole.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:19 am
Talking with SLC: Just when I thought it couldn’t get any better…wow. One more time, from the top:
SLC:
As Curtis Lemay would say, make a parking lot out of Iran.
(killing >70 million people)
Ian:
SLC wants to kill more people than Hitler did. Maybe he’s changed his mind. I hope so. Care to retract? Apologize?
SLC:
Not a chance…As the late Johnny Cochran would say, the difference between Hamas and Hitler is that the latter had the power to carry out his designs and the former doesn’t.
Ian:
In your own words sir, the only difference between you and Hitler is that the latter had the power to carry out his designs and the former doesn’t.
SLC:
Exactly so.
Oh SLC, all is forgiven. We loves you forever.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:11 am
freddybak, are we really having a civil conversation about antisemitism on the internet? Has that ever happened before?
I’m afraid that I still don’t see reason to believe that the play is antisemetic. I wanted to take your point of view seriously, so I read the Jeffrey Goldberg interview in its entirety.
Goldberg said a lot of things like the following:
“The play’s motivation is to demonize the Jewish people.”
“I think she wrote this to demonize Israel.”
“It comes out of a certain moment and it comes out of a culture that has demonized Israel.”
And so on for most of the interview. Technically, this isn’t an argument about the play at all, but about the writer. Theatre is a funny artform, though; once the script is given to the director, the play is out of the writer’s hands. The writer has no way of getting her intentions across except through the script itself. His ad hominem attacks do nothing to prove his point, even if (if) everything he says about the author is true — he needs to show us in what respect the play is evil.
Goldberg makes accusations about the blood libel — still the only argument I saw. He cites no evidence; he leaves it to his opponent even to point out what the relevant passage is. I argued upthread that the blood libel is not present in the script, and he does not try to prove his point.
Really the kicker for me came at the end. JG: “I judge it as a piece of politics, not as a piece of art.” In the whole interview, I don’t think he’s interested in the content of the play at all — he’s just using it as a political football to kick around. JG has a history of this sort of thing (putting political expediency ahead of the facts), which is why many people here do not consider him worth listening to.
——-
He makes specific arguments about why that is the case way better than I could.
Don’t sell yourself short. You make nuanced arguments rather than bellowing talking points. You respond to the substance of what your opponents have to say instead of getting carried away emotionally, and it seems as though you’re open to being convinced by a good argument. You deserve better than JG. Maybe you’re granting him points for style, I don’t know, but I will say that I’d rather read your honest arguments than his dishonest ones.
March 31st, 2009 at 7:15 am
tomemos, I should say that I think that Yglesias was a dick at the time partly because he was a punk college kid — I’m glad that nothing I wrote as a 20-year-old is immortalized where everyone can see it. And he deserves credit for coming to a more humane view of the issue.
March 31st, 2009 at 8:26 am
Re Richard Steven Hack
1. One could only wish that Israels’ critics consisted entirely of ex-con armed bank robbers like Mr. Hack. Unfortunately, these critics include semi-respectable fucktards like Juan Cole.
2. At least one can say that Ms. Phillips and Reverend Hagee have never been convicted of armed bank robbery and spent 9 years as unwilling guests of their respective governments.
March 31st, 2009 at 8:52 am
Re Blue Pearl at 46: “well, there is one colossal difference between the lobbies you mention and AIPAC. do you know what that is?
AIPAC is pushing for war with Iran.”
——————–
Well, there’s also those 4500+ dead soldiers from Iraq. And the thousands more crippled for life.
The AARP and NRA don’t run up that kind of American body count.
March 31st, 2009 at 10:15 am
Ian,
I appreciate your indulgence of this whole thing and your kind words. I obviously don’t agree with your characterization of JG. Look, you are going to have to deal with the fact that many Jews are going to react emotionally to what they perceive to be anti-Semitism. Maybe not Jews like Yglesias and Klein who have grown up in these little Ivy League cocoons of privilege, but they aren’t representative of all of Jewry any more than Goldberg, Netanyahu or Soros is. I also don’t buy your point about art being separated from the artist, especially when the arti is political. Just like a rapper saying the N word is different than a member of a southern all white country club saying it, the background of the playwrite here is pretty crucial. It seems that you are looking for a purely objective and scientific definition of anti-Semitism that this play falls into. But I’m not sure there is such a definition. Justice Potter Stewart’s attempt to explain “hard-core” pornography explains how most Jews see anti-Semitism: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it.” So coming back to our original question, the origins of many Jews’ beef with J-Street is that they don’t seem to know it when they see it.
March 31st, 2009 at 11:17 am
Apparently, they believe, in the absence of evidence, that the Hamas folks are not serious people and that their stated position that they will never recognize Israel is just a negotiating ploy.
This is from the same man who believes that Likud’s stated position that it will never recognize a Palestinian state is, in fact, just a negotiating ploy.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:09 pm
A non-rhetorical question from a non-Jew:
Since the classic meaning Of “blood libel” concerns the allegation that Jews used babies for religious ceremonies and is obviously inapplicable at present, what is the new definition?
March 31st, 2009 at 2:36 pm
“Since the classic meaning Of “blood libel” concerns the allegation that Jews used babies for religious ceremonies and is obviously inapplicable at present, what is the new definition?”
Seriously, the last one I heard was over on Balloon Juice where someone genuinely argued that, if you point out that people caught spying for Israel in the USA tend to get – much – more lenient treatment than spies for any other nationality these days, you’re engaging in blood-libel by painting Jews as inherantly more untrustworthy than any other people.
But it seems to boil down to – “Accusing anyone Jewish of doing anything wrong is JUST LIKE resurrecting the Blood-Libel, and that makes you anti-semitic.”
Makes any discussion of anything to do with Israel pretty hard going, which, I suppose, is the point of the tactic.
March 31st, 2009 at 7:24 pm
I think the answer lies in the American Culture War, absurdly enough. The Left/liberal and mostly partisan 40% of the American political spectrum now has worn out and purged itself of the internalized conservatism or Right biases that supporting right wing Israelis involves.
The likes of AIPAC are invested on the Right/conservative side of the issue, and they are realizing they’ve for practical purposes lost the grassroots and voter base of the Democratic Party. Their power with the Democratic Party is principally due to older and more conservative members of the higher tiers, i.e. elected politicians mostly elderly, and the rapidly shrinking, increasingly marginalized, Right or conservative Democratic voter factions.
That conservatism is mostly Christian Zionism or Christian philosemitism (where people are anti-Semitic toward only certain defined subsets of Jews, rather than all Jews). Christian anti-Semitism, the older and parent Culture War issue, has gone underground but its 30% support at the Right end of the political spectrum means 90% of the hardcore Republican grassroots and base are still not exactly American Jews’ best allies.
I believe the American political math means juxtaposing these two issues, on which the electorate splits 40-60 and 70-30 (liberal-conservative) respectively. IOW, ~40% of the American electorate is Left/liberal on Israel and Jews when pushed, ~30% Right/conservative, and the middle 30% are not anti-Semitic but do bias to support of the violent Israeli actions done under claims of Zionism.
The rate of shift is probably, as on all Culture War issues, 1% increase of the liberal p.o.v. per year based in the dieout of the Right/conservative p.o.v. with elderly voters and new young voters taking the Left/liberal side. In about 10 years the Israeli Right will find the support or bias in its favor among American voters under 50%, and AIPAC and the like will start to fail and come apart.
The current sound and fury from them is like that of the Nineties among the GOP: a sense that the ascendant minority has grown to the point where it cannot be suppressed and threatens their domination. Much of the raging is an effort to block out evidence to the contrary, to convince themselves of an escapist illusion that demographics and time are in their favor, not relentlessly against them.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:04 pm
It’s difficult to single out an overarching reason to explain why AIPAC so infuriates me. True, they are far to the right of American Jewish opinion, and thus shouldn’t pretend to speak for it. Ditto Israeli public opinion, only moreso. Two reasons that strikme me is the extent to which AIPAC operates undercover, by having ‘friends’ make the campaign contributions, rather than doing it in the name of the organization. The second is the extent to which AIPAC actively intervenes in Congressional races, attempting to control individual Congressmen. Yet another is the extent to which AIPAC is in some implicit sense the spokeman for a froeign goverment. Yet, in the first two, AIPAC, as spokey noted above isn’t really doing anyrhing more than the NRA or any bisiness lobby. Anenet the third, AIPAC may be spending more money, but it isn’t doing anything that the Saudis don’t also do.
So I find it hard to pin down a logic for my detestation. I have less than no sympathy for Arabs and Palestinians, and I’ve been a life-long Zionist since the days when my friends and peers fought in the Stern gang. Yet detest AIPAC I do. I can only paraphrase Potter Stewart, saying in effect ‘I don’t know why, but I know it when I see it’. Maybe someone can help me out.
April 12th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
After all your self-righteous babble dies down, have any of you considered that maybe, just maybe, the Palestinians have a legitimate problem with being imprisoned and bombed by Israelis? It is easy to be the oppressor – just ask any US Southerner prior to the 1950s. Lots of jollies in keeping black people down and, oh me, oh my, it was sooooooo easy.
Of course, it’s easy to abuse people who have little recourse to defend themselves from the abuse. Might makes right? I don’t think so.
Aparthied? Go look in the mirror and tell me with a straight face that Palestinians are free to come and go, free to work, free to get to school, to seek medical care and to work unharmed. And, please, don’t tell me that they can get there if they have the proper papers and are willing to wait. Can’t you people see what you’re supporting? Don’t you read what Avigdor Lieberman says? Do you not know your own history or are you all revisionists who see Israel as the land of God’s Chosen people who are all good and peaceful. LOOK IN THE MIRROR! Israel cannot continue to abuse its neighbors and continue to believe the rest of the world will love them because Jews have been oppressed. Beware of becoming that which you abhore.
April 12th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Regarding my above comment. I’m sure many who read it have categorized me as anti-Semitic. A sure bet for anyone who believes that Israel misbehaves in any way. When I read blog responses like the above, I see self-righteousness, a severe lack of introspection, a disregard for human rights and worst of all, incredible prejudice towards Muslims and, indeed, almost anyone who isn’t a Jew. (I’m not Jewish.) One has only to educate themselves in the history and behavior of the State of Israel since it’s inception. I’m not against Israel – it’s existence is a fact and it will only be changed if they continue on their current death wish trip. What I’m saying is that blaming everything on Israeli’s neighbors and calling anyone who tries to look at the situation in a fair and balanced way names, is unreasonable and that those who do so are apparently wearing blinders.
From where I sit, after 50 years of studying this situation, it appears fairly clear that Israel is intent on taking absolute control of the entire area that the Romans named Palestine. They have done quite well in this so far. Just look at the original UN Map of the two regions drawn up in 1948 and compare it to what is left of Palestine now. It’s a no brainer. The Fence or Wall or whatever you want to call the obscene barrier, has further encroached on the 1967 border. Please tell me where, in any other conflict, such disregard for UN Resolutions and International Law can happen with so little opposition. (or for such amazing disregard for the opposition that does exist, which is growing daily.)
I, for one, am happy to see a lobby like J Street trying to make sense of this mess and working to NOT label anyone who dares question Israeli’s motives as anti-Semitic. AIPAC has done immeasureable damage by their bullying, self-righteous, irrational and dishonest behavior. Thanks to the Internet and Israeli’s flagrant attacks on Lebanon and Gaza, people are becoming more and more aware of Israeli’s power and abuse of same. It is way past time that they were challenged to sit down at the negotiating table and fair and honest peace negotiations be held.
Also, I think all the froo-fra about the Palestinian woman’s suffering over her lost child and the Israeli woman’s comment is stupid. What mother doesn’t anguish when her child is murdered? What mother doesn’t look at her children when such an atrocity happens and say, “thank heaven my child is alright.” For those who call the presentation of this “blood libel” you need to take a good look at your own humanity. We all suffer when children are murdered.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Good morning. Never feel self-pity, the most destructive emotion there is. How awful to be caught up in the terrible squirrel cage of self.
I am from Bulgaria and now study English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: “Find the best prices for airline tickets on the internet with best fare finder, cheap airline tickets from uk.”
Thanks for the help 8-), Valborg.