in 2000-2001 as a leading Bush-stole-the-election diehard (listen, I
was on the cover of The Washington Post protesting for Gore outside the
first Supreme Court hearing) but after 9/11 was an idiosyncratic
pro-war/anti-Bush nut, in both cases of the first order. I met
the man in New Hampshire in 2004 (a VERY long story) where he had a
table at the MTV/Rock The Vote convention, running a one man campaign
to draft Hillary. He even bought commercials in key primary states of
a very badly animated Hillary as superhero taking back the White House
from Bush and Cheney declaring "Only Hillary beats Bush!"
When I
pursued an argument with him to the effect that Hillary might be more
hawkish than Bush (remember that this was pre-surge and pre-"ending
tyranny in our world"), he first snapped back some unexceptional
Dissentnik bromides about Democratic hawkishness before ranting and
raving about Iran – I forget if he called for nuking Iran or for attacking Pakistan as well but I do remember it was a big step beyond just calling for war with Iran.
I'd note that this Kunst site emphasizes his rightthinking opposition to the Vietnam War and support for the civil rights movement. Which just goes to show: religious issues cut right thru conventional politics, for Kunst is for denying Palestinians their human and civil rights.
As I often say, even J Street is vulnerable to these attitudes. Their constituency is liberal American Jews, but they are careful to say nothing about giving back land or dividing Jerusalem in their latest letter for four candidates:
are all challenging incumbent Congressmen who have been loyal allies of
George Bush and supportive of his disastrous foreign policy agenda,
which has been bad for both the U.S. and for Israel…. Click here to give $20 to four surging pro-Israel, pro-peace candidates.
Together, we're seriously challenging the status quo in Washington when it comes to Israel and Middle East.
Nowhere in the letter is there anything the least bit programmatic or issues-related. Just "pro-peace," a signal that land will be traded for peace.
Steve F. defends the mainstream American Jewish position in this note to me:
fantasy world if you think that American Jews will oppose real peace in
Israel even if that means dividing Jerusalem. What the AJC poll represents [58 percent oppose dividing J'lem] is a real concern as to whether the division of Jerusalem would bring conflict
to this fairly peaceful city. If real peace is possible, we all know
Jerusalem will be divided. Clinton and Barak proposed this. Clinton
is beloved by the Jews and Barak is still a powerful force in Israel. The
question for America is whether a reasonable peace is possible with the current
Palestinian leadership. If it is not, largely because of bad actors like
Hamas, you risk another Mideast conflict, which is bad for America, if you push
to divide Jerusalem while the Palestinians have hostile leaders
who may use their territory as a launching pad for rockets, terror and
general mayhem. Hamas is the problem on this point, not Israel or American
Jews.
I hope Steve is right, but I'm not sure. I think there's real intransigence within the Jewish community. And speaking of intransigence, let's remember that for 60 years notwithstanding endless expansion, confiscation, violence, and human-rights violations, sore grievances to the Palestinians, Israel has had a state. While there is always something wrong with the Palestinian leadership. Always. Just as there is always something wrong with Pakistani and Indian leadership. But funnily enough those brown people have had had states for 60 years. Palestinians have never had the right to self-determination. That's the burner left on high under the Middle East.
