Matt Yglesias

J Street and the Haters

Jews tend not to like far-right politicians from Kentucky (AIPAC photo)

James Besser at The New York Jewish Week keeps trying to swear off writing about progressive Jewish organization J Street but keeps getting dragged back in by the over-the-top hatred of Jeremy Ben-Ami’s relatively new outfit. He wonders what the deal is. I’m not sure myself and don’t want to psychoanalyze other people, but I do think Eric Alterman’s 2006 column about AIPAC’s ties to the Republican Party and conservative causes more generally is relevant here:

It’s a truism that most American Jews are liberal Democrats. For decades, neoconservatives have argued that they are bucking their own interests in staying true to these values and should join the Republicans, where, together with right-wing conservatives they will insure that support for a fair settlement for the Palestinians will remain as low as taxes on the extremely wealthy. So far, these arguments have had almost no effect on Jews, who supported Democrats as loyally as any single constituency in the last election. But the argument has worked on the leaders of many Jewish organizations. What we are left with, therefore, is a paradox. American Jews are liberals; they support Democrats. But Jewish organizations strategize with Republicans on how to smear these same Democrats, supported by the funds of these same liberal Democratic Jews.

This is just an inherently unstable situation. And I think it helps explain why much-larger and better-established organizations seem to find the very existence of J Street so threatening. Normally a conservative institution is relying on the financial and institutional support of, you know, conservatives. So while conservative organizations obviously disagree with progressive organizations, they’re not actually threatened by them. The Center for American Progress, for example, couldn’t possibly displace Heritage and AEI as go-to think tanks for conservative policymakers. But AIPAC and others are actually depending to a large extent on liberals and it’s very plausible to imagine Jews with progressive political opinions drifting away to support a left-wing organization. And of course Jews with progressive political opinions are the overwhelming majority of American Jews.

Cantor, Hoyer Forget to Take “AIPAC” Off Their Letter’s File Name

One reason I always try to talk up the virtues of Nancy Pelosi is that I know what the likely alternatives look like in terms of House leadership:

Speaking of Iran and that region, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) sent out a “Dear Colleague” e-mail Tuesday asking for signatures “to the attached letter to President Obama regarding the Middle East peace process.”

The letter says the usual stuff, emphasizing that Washington “must be both a trusted mediator and a devoted friend to Israel” and noting: “Israel will be taking the greatest risks in any peace agreement.”

Curiously, when we opened the attachment, we noticed it was named “AIPAC Letter Hoyer Cantor May 2009.pdf.”

Seems as though someone forgot to change the name or something.

Of course at the end of the day it’s not as if Hoyer or Cantor actually have much to fear from being so unsubtle about who makes their Israel policy. It is worth noting, however, that while public talk at the AIPAC conference was about devotion to peace, the substance of this letter is to try to make people think there will be a domestic price to be paid for any serious effort to push for a solution. This is similar to how Israel’s land grabs in-and-around Jerusalem are at odds with the Israeli government’s public presentation of itself as interested in peace and disturbed by the lack of a credible partner.

Here’s Cantor and Hoyer teaming up in The Washington Times during the Gaza War, and here’s MJ Rosenberg on the substance of the latest Cantor/Hoyer letter.

Biden, Kerry Call for Settlement Freeze

This is AIPAC summitteering I can believe in:

Vice President Joe Biden and U.S. Sen. John Kerry pledged to confront Iran and protect Israel, but called on the Jewish state to freeze settlements. In their addresses Tuesday on the closing day of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference, both said President Obama was committed to removing Iran’s nuclear threat. [...]

“Israel,” [Biden] said, “must work toward a two-state solution, not build settlements, dismantle outposts and allow Palestinians access to freedom of movement.” [...]

“Israel, too, must take hard steps toward the path to peace,” Kerry said, calling for greater freedom of movement for Palestinians and a settlement freeze.

That’s good stuff. Will we see policy follow through from the administration and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee?

AIPAC Spy Case Dropped

This is almost certainly the right decision. I enjoyed AIPAC getting a black eye, and it wouldn’t be a bad thing if their dealings got somewhat more scrutiny, but the particulars of this case seem an awful lot like an effort to establish a dangerous precedent that can be used in the future against all manner of journalists.

AIPAC vs. Chas Freedman

This sure is weird:

But former AIPAC Policy Director Steve Rosen sounded a more strident tone yesterday at Laura Rozen’s report of a new head for the National Intelligence Council, calling the reported choice of Chas Freeman “alarming.”

He, disapprovingly, quotes Freeman, the former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, saying, “As long as the United States continues unconditionally to provide the subsidies and political protection that make the Israeli occupation and the high-handed and self-defeating policies it engenders possible, there is little, if any, reason to hope that anything resembling the former peace process can be resurrected” and decrying the consequences of “Israeli violence against Palestinians.”

If this is all they’ve got on Freeman, that’s absurd. Of course, I imagine their real objections run deeper than that. The Middle East Policy Council where Freeman works offers, as I understand it, something of an Arabist take on Middle East issues rather than the usual tussle between hawkish Jews and dovish Jews represented by me and Jamie Kirchick furiously blogging against each other. But clearly Freeman is right about the inadvisability of unconditional financial aid to Israel and also about the fact that Israeli violence has regrettable consequences. Freeman’s point of view, as far as I know, isn’t exactly mine but it seems to be well within the range of perspectives that one might want to have access to.