Understanding Dershowitz

by on February 16, 2009 32
0sharesFacebook
0tweetsTwitter
0stumbledStumbleUpon
0sharesReddit
0recommendGoogle
Mohammad of Vancouver:
The real and material world changes in many ways on a regular basis. Things go up, then they go down, and then they go up again. Every phenomenon, even a solid piece of rock, shows the signs of change over time. But in our vast universe, one thing always remains the same both in quality and quantity. This eternally unchangeable thing is Alan Dershowitz's expression of love and support for Israel.
Dershowitz's insistence that Israel always acts with the highest moral standards and therefore is right remains outside of the natural law. We all know no one, even god, can always be right. So how is it that Israel surpasses god when it comes to right and wrong?
It's not just the natural law that is questioned by Dershowitz's position, since his magical consistency also defies logic, morality and the sense of vision that form the basis of our humanity. He seems to have managed to compel his audience to weigh what is clear to their eyes against his completely lunatic understanding of the situation, managing to convince a lot of people to abandon the obvious visual evidence, and compel the rest to at least keep questioning their own eyes and their own judgment against his claims.
Pretty amazing given that we hardly ever mistrust our eyes.
How does Dershowitz do this? For one thing, he is a lawyer. He makes a living defending suspects whose questionable behavior has not yet been legally defined as a crime. And Dershowitz is a successful lawyer which means he has gotten a lot of his clients out of the hook with his brilliant skills. For him, Israel is both just another client and at the same time the most client ever. Regardless of whether he receives money for the work he has been doing for his master client Israel or not, he needs this case as a permanently defining challenge that gives meaning to his other legal work, being his teaching at Harvard Law School, or defending his typical clients. But things have started to change. Since the election of Obama and the recent Israeli pogrom in Gaza, it is hard to look at Dershowitz and take him seriously. The clarity with which America has articulated the desire for change, and the brutality that the Jewish State's army has used on Palestinians, make Dershowitz's act less and less like a legal show and more and more like a drag show. Today Dershowitz's act is comparable to and better understood in the context of queer culture's most theatrical performative strategy. In the drag show, a gay man finds balance between his reality of being a man and his desire to be a woman. A drag show is not only entertaining, but it's an empowering tool in negotiating between conflicting identities. I personally love drag shows and am always up front watching the performers act out their female fantasies. How can one compare Alan Dershowitz to a Drag Queen? For one he is an American universalist pretending to be an Israeli exceptionalist. Just as the drag performer exaggerates the opposite gender role, Dershowitz's defense of Israel is even more intense than the same performance by Real Israeli officials. Drag queens dress and act more feminine than most women, so Dershowitz is more pro Israeli than Israel itself. At the same time, Dershowitz is too civilized to be the pilot who recklessly bombs people's homes. Dershowitz is too liberal to personally shoot at civilians from a tank. And so his intense support for these policies points to a fantasy rather than reality. The drag queen can only fantasize life as a woman, and Dershowitz only fantasizes his absolute support for racist discrimination, war crimes and now pogroms. Later he can change clothes and return to his civilized self when his pro Israeli show is over. Over at the supermarket... down the aisle in the coffee shop... Alan is a polite and considerate American who respects people in a usually dignified American manner. If Dershowitz is really that pro Israel, why doesn't he move to israel? I bet he could be the state's attorney general under any government, if not its president. But all of us can understand, he loves his life in the American dream. He who cannot endorse equal rights for Palestinians want to revel in the new American diversity. He is even a fan of Obama. Don't mix up a drag queen with a transgendered person going through a sexual transformation. And Alan too should not be mixed up with a Jewish person who makes the aliyah and joins the armed settler groups in the occupied territories. Like a drag queen, Alan's act points to the complex set of psychological machinations rather than a decision to be an Israeli. And what about us, the audience? The shamelessness one experiences while watching Dershowitz is the same shamelessness that used to be attached to Drag Queen performances before the gay liberation movement made things not only understandable, but also widely appreciated. The point is that we should never take either a drag queen's act or Alan Dershowitz's show at their face value. Dershowitz really thinks he is a global citizen of Israel. Instead of hating him, we need to remind the other members of the audience that he is an American, and that his pro Israeli act has gone from being completely, seriously effective to being merely ridiculous. We, in the justice and peace camp, need to respect him for his entertaining value. We need to make the rest of the world relate to him as they relate to a drag performer. In that way he can have his show, and we can have our fun without getting angry.
Posted in Gaza, Israel Lobby, Israel/Palestine, US Policy in the Middle East, US Politics

{ 32 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Duscany says:
    February 16, 2009 at 2:45 am

    "We need to make the rest of the world relate to him as they relate to a drag performer. In that way he can have his show, and we can have our fun without getting angry."

    Dershowitz is far more than a Zionist drag queen. He also writes dishonest books, defends torture, gets people fired and otherwise ruins people's lives and reputations. He doesn't deserve a get-out-of-jail-free card just because he's good to his dog.

  2. Craig says:
    February 16, 2009 at 3:26 am

    "We all know no one, even god, can always be right."

    Spoken like a true secularist.

  3. Rowan says:
    February 16, 2009 at 3:40 am

    Thanks for drawing attention to this pretentious piece of nonsense, Craig:

    Dershowitz's insistence that Israel always acts with the highest moral standards and therefore is right remains outside of the natural law. We all know no one, even god, can always be right. So how is it that Israel surpasses god when it comes to right and wrong?

    I wouldn't even have bothered with the article, personally.

  4. Mohammad says:
    February 16, 2009 at 4:57 am

    The "can" is a spelling mistake and should have been read as "can't". I meant to say that God Can't always be right. I hope the context make it clear. I am going to ask Philip to fix my spelling mistake. My apologies…

  5. Citizen says:
    February 16, 2009 at 6:47 am

    I do agree with Duscany's excellent comment. However I believe Mohammad expected people to know this, hence his depiction of
    Dershie, basically as a conflicted clown. To be discounted by reality-based folks. That was a mistake on Mohammad's part–he should
    have made the obvious point (Duscany's) at the close of his article totally obvious to even the most dense reader, especially since his depiction of
    Dershie is very entertaining–that small closing addition would be like the sucker punch after the set up in boxing. Personally, I found Mohammad's article compelling, fun, and deadly serious. Kudos to Mohammad!

  6. Richard Witty says:
    February 16, 2009 at 7:24 am

    I think that Dershowitz' comments deserve consideration. They are are partially correct, and to dismiss anyone's comments that are partially true is to throw baby's out with bathwater.

    Muhammed here speaks as if he is authority, not partially true, but absolutely true. I believe with false confidence.

    Israel is neither demon nor angel, but human.

    I think the effort for divestment will make the world worse, make the prospect for middle east peace and viability for Palestinians as Palestinians more remote, rather than closer.

    Its a nagging mother. "I will force you to do "whats best for you"".

    Except neither the fictional mother, nor the idealist know what is best. They guess, and punish.

  7. Rowan says:
    February 16, 2009 at 8:38 am

    well, I think that saying that "God can't always be right" is just as silly, myself, sorry. I mean, what context are you talking about? What 'God'? You can't just dissolve the whole of the world's religions into a blur by waving a vague phrase about.

  8. Rowan says:
    February 16, 2009 at 8:43 am

    I imagine that your real purpose, Mohammad, was to appeal to some supposed secularist 'progressive' consensus here, to the effect that all religions are 'old-fashioned', but there is no such consensus here, nor I imagine in the Canadian electorate.

  9. Witty's anonymous critic says:
    February 16, 2009 at 9:14 am

    I'm wondering, Richard, if you felt the same way about the sanctions on Gaza or whether you think Hamas should be treated neither as angel or demon. Serious question.

  10. Citizen says:
    February 16, 2009 at 9:34 am

    I'm wondering too, Richard, about this: " Its a nagging mother. "I will force you to do "whats best for you"

    Wasn't the apartheid S African regime forced to do "what was best for it?"

    Including giving up its nukes?

  11. Rowan says:
    February 16, 2009 at 10:08 am

    It isn't just you, Mohammad: I have it in for practically everybody, for substituting what I regard as phony pseudo-progressive values for solid class-based marxian ones. Among these phomny progressive values are feminism and secularism, not to mention gay rights. It's all a deliberately created distraction from class politics. There is no reason at all why religion should be regarded as 'reactionary' by people who have no comprehension of marxism in the first place – this is like throwing out the baby and keeping the dirty bathwater.

  12. Eva Smagacz says:
    February 16, 2009 at 10:18 am

    Richard,

    Nice to have you back.

    I think that world consensus is that talking and dialogue has been ruthlessly exploited to expand settlements and checkpoints. Boycott is a proven tool of highlighting a worlds displeasure at immoral political position of a given country. It has managed to achieve the goal at the shorter timespan than any other pressure that has been applied to Israel so far.

    What is more,Israel has now more choices that it had in the previous decades: it can do the right thing by withdrawing to 1967 borders OR it can do the right thing by granting full human rights, including right to vote to people that it is subjugating.

  13. LeaNder says:
    February 16, 2009 at 11:16 am

    Muhammed here speaks as if he is authority, not partially true, but absolutely true. I believe with false confidence.

    Nonsense, Richard. He playing with an idea. He tries to entertain us. I think the boxer imagery is quite fitting. He is attacking one of the most visible defenders of Israeli morality and superior rights via ridicule. A very common tool by the weak versus the strong.

    Mohammad, you should by now get the spelling right, don't you think? I am not saying it could never happen to me, I try to avoid "nevers". But misspelling a person's name, even more one that is by now rather prominent here, signals your basic disrespect for him.

    The weak point is indeed the idea that God too can err. I think he can't be definition. Let's see:

    Dershowitz's insistence that Israel always acts with the highest moral standards and therefore is right remains outside of the natural law. We all know no one, even god, can't always be right. So how is it that Israel surpasses god when it comes to right and wrong?

    I leave out comments about natural law. It feels your burlesque would have been more convincing if you had approached it via the possible failures in men's interpretations of God's word and "mind".

    Maybe it would have been better to use God's omnipotence, his almightiness in connection with Dershowitz. What does God's omnipotence mean in connection with the Holocaust? Or how do Dershowitz and Israel circumvent basic laws of the Jewish religion for secular gains? Isn't Israel God basically someone who is above the "human's law"? Isn't he some kind of feoffer granting land without a fee, even land belonging to others. Or are the wars the fees God demands? A new sacrifice he demands?

  14. Ed says:
    February 16, 2009 at 11:49 am

    Mohammad: "For one [Dershowitz] is an American universalist pretending to be an Israeli exceptionalist."

    I believe the opposite is true: he is a Jewish exceptionalist pretending to be an American universalist. He just believes he can utilize his American citizenship on behalf of Zionism more effectively than if he were to make aliyah. But the duel-identity, schizophrenic characteristics that this split inspires still holds true, both for him and among many other Jewish supremacist Americans.

    "American universalism," by the way, is a manifestation of Western civilization, which itself is a manifestation of Christianity. There is always going to be a schizophrenic split within ideologues living anywhere in the West who are simultaneously waging a war against Western civilization, be they Zionists, Leftists, Islamists, or Imperialists, until their ideology predominates. In fact, because so many Westerners now fall into one of these last four camps, the West is itself becoming schizophrenic.

    Either traditional Christian-based Western civilization will make a comeback and again predominate, or it will collapse into perpetually warring factions and civil war, and likely eventual nuclear war.

  15. Mohammad says:
    February 16, 2009 at 1:05 pm

    I am not against god, not I am for god. I consider religion an empty signifier that can be utilized for any purpose, good or bad.

  16. marc b. says:
    February 16, 2009 at 1:28 pm

    I think that Dershowitz' comments deserve consideration. They are are partially correct, and to dismiss anyone's comments that are partially true is to throw baby's out with bathwater.

    Dershowitz's commentary deserves consideration because it is consistent with mainstream supporters of America's brand of Zionism, and because it is evidence of how narrowly accessible American media are. Any graduate student in the Middle Eastern studies department of a middling American university is likely more knowledgeable than Dershowitz, yet his presence in the media is ubiquitous.

    I find Dershowtiz both infuriatingly entertaining, and empowering: Entertaining because he is such an arrogant prick, and empowering because his factual assertions are so easily set aside.

  17. Ed says:
    February 16, 2009 at 1:36 pm

    The problem with a vague identity, or a complete lack of identity, which some categorize alternately as “American universalism” or the “American quilt,” is that it produces nothing so much as empty-headed vessels that, for example, Zionist cults will eventually come upon and fill with their own poisonous ideologies. Or “Gangsta” cults, or Leftists cults, or money worshipping cults will come upon. And prey upon.

    Unilateral disarmament has always had a tremendous appeal to peace-loving minds, but peace must be built upon some foundation of generally agreed upon values and principles, and so long as there are powerful Leftists, Zionists, Imperialist, and Islamist cults out there disputing and contesting the generally agreed upon values and principles of Western civilization, unilateral disarmament is completely out of the question, and the idea of "universalism" or unilateral disarmament becomes a recruitment tool for cultists.

  18. Richard Witty says:
    February 16, 2009 at 2:25 pm

    Marc,
    You demonstrate my point. You dismiss, rather than inquire, analyze, assess.

    The point about divestments or boycotts is that if enacted they DO effect people.

    I've agitated for political issues in my life that I thought were just and effective, later to find out that they net harmed.

    Its then IMPORTANT to accurately understand what has and is occurring.

    I personally think it is more important to propose than to either react, or as Phil concludes, to "pressure".

    I review the various possibilities of solutions, and ALL of them involve some oppression on some party (more than inconvenience). The optimal is the two-state solution, that DOES acknowledge the validity of Zionism, but not of expansionist Zionism.

  19. Witty's anonymous critic says:
    February 16, 2009 at 2:44 pm

    It's true that one has to be careful about boycotts and sanctions–the ones on South Africa worked, but others have had catastrophic effects on innocent people, such as the 90's sanctions on Iraq.

    I haven't read enough about what is proposed for Israel–I'd be in favor of sanctions on selling them weapons and Caterpillar bulldozers and maybe some other things, but I wouldn't want something that did the harm to Israel that Israel has inflicted on Gaza. Two war crimes don't cancel out and make everything right. I do want people to recognize that the world has inflicted very harsh sanctions on the Gazans, though, while people like Thomas Friedman go into hysterics at the mere mention of a boycott of Israeli universities.

  20. Mooser says:
    February 16, 2009 at 2:45 pm

    - "this is like throwing out the baby and keeping the dirty bathwater."

    Which you can use to water plants and make the desert bloom!

  21. Mooser says:
    February 16, 2009 at 2:48 pm

    But the duel-identity, schizophrenic characteristics that this split inspires still holds true

    They are indeed, always ready to fight as someone they're not.

  22. Citizen says:
    February 16, 2009 at 3:07 pm

    @ Witty
    No. It is Dershie that dismisses, rather than inquires. Marc is saying that because Dershie's POV is slavishly followed by the USA government (bought & paid for by AIPAC influenced drones) he must be addressed, and to the extent his narrative oh I-P history is
    misleading, to that extent the average American citizen who votes and pays taxes must be made aware– of to what actual cause he or she
    gives their life, sweat, blood, and blind allegiance. The blindfold afforded by the MSM. The point is that allowing AIPAC et al to continue
    their Israel First, right or wrong, USA foreign policy is not in the best interest of the USA, nor, secondly, in the best interest of Israel's survival. If you, Witty, really believe that it is more important to "to accurately understand what has and is occurring," then you would
    side against Dershowitz in favor of the divestment students. If anyone puts on the "pressure" it has been, and is AIPAC. And their organs, the bought and paid for USA Congress and White House, the think tanks such as the one Phil mentions on another recent post to his blog.

    The right wing Israelis don't want the two-state solution, and they just grabbed more Palestinian land and in so doing thumbed their
    nose at the Obama regime's rhetoric of being open and fair to all. I am glad you do not agree with expansionist Zionism. Does that
    mean you are in favor of getting rid of all settlements–or only new ones? The pattern has been ever increasing new settlements, and/or
    expansion of existing ones, plus sticking in new ones. Please clarify.

  23. dana says:
    February 16, 2009 at 3:19 pm

    Good metaphor, mohammed. I do agree with Ed however that dershowitz's drag is universalism, even as the reality is exceptionalism (ie, tribalism). That's because his act is to exaggerate the former and sublimate the latter. What is true in any case is that he is no more a clown than a (good) drag queen is – though his behavior at times has definite clownish aspects. What he is is a good PRETENDER.

    I also think – along with others here – that the pretense (ie, "The performance") is an acting out of a "progressive-in-good-standing" where in truth his very exaggeration of such membership in the club belies progressive values.

    Ultimately what we are trying to address here (on this blog, at least) that tribalism stands in direct opposition to real progressivism – much as racism was, for example (the one thing all progressives agree on). Unfortunately, I doubt there are enough progressives in the US ready to make that leap yet. Nothing demonstrates that better than the Jewish core of the democratic party. The ones who are – to quote Phil's expression – PEP's, ie Progressive Except on Israel. I believe (am hardly alone in this) that this is one of the problems dragging down the entire left movement. The split at the core of the left may very well be a key reason the anti-Iraq war protests failed to get enough traction to actually stop it before it starts – or to support a prompt withdrawal now. It's not so simple as to say it's all the fault of the jews. Rather it's that a large – and effective -segment of the left wing of the democratic party is Missing-in-Action – neutralized, so to speak, by having to perform – and/or attend – endless series of drag shows. And it just so happens that given the other counter-progressive forces in America (money, fundamentalism, under-education, corpocracy) the jews are badly needed to fight the good fight.

  24. Ed says:
    February 16, 2009 at 3:48 pm

    dana: "the jews are badly needed to fight the good fight."

    Nonsense. This is liberal Judeophile mythos. As soon as organized Jewry gets involved in a large scale, any "good fight" invariably turns into a means to advance their own tribal interests, from the Jewish Bolshevks straight on through to the Jewish Zionists to the Jewish Neolibs/Neocons. That's the nature of the beast.

    Any ideology that has allowed organized Jewry in on any large scale has ultimately paid the ultimate price — abject failure — due to organized Jewry's perpetual double-dealing. Any ideology that would allow organized Jewry in pursuent to its own agenda DESERVES to fail.

    The "progressive" Obama administration is full of Jewish Zionists, which is why it will ultimately fail. They refuse to decide between its left-wing agenda and the Jewish Zionist agenda. They are greedy. They want it all. So it looks like what we'll get out of Obama is a left-liberal/Zionist agenda, which is yet another example of the schizophrenic, two-headed beast that leaves modern America perpetually bogged, flailing and blundering.

  25. marc b. says:
    February 16, 2009 at 4:01 pm

    Richard, Citizen has already touched upon some of this, but I do read Dershowitz analytically, not simply for his comic value. As a quick example, one of his most recent talking points is the use of civilians by Hamas as human shields in the latest round of mayhem. Never once does he cite a specific example of the Palestinians' use of this tactic. And perhaps such examples exist, but you wouldn't know it from an analysis of Dershowitz's rhetoric. My gripe with this particular point is that there are numerous examples of the IDF's use of human shields during the Gaza incursion, easily found in the Israeli and UK press, amongst others. Even more bothersome is that Dershowitz, an apparent expert on all matters legal, is seemingly oblivious to the Israeli Supreme Court's finding that the use of human shields is illegal. This strikes me as the journalistic equivalent of projection. Or more to the point, agitprop.

    In my opinion, Dershowtiz has written some interesting, insightful commentary on the law, the place of Jews in American society, and on local matters of government (he had neatly dissected the corrupt State Senate President William 'Billy' Bulger long before that hack resigned). On the matter of Israel, however he has assumed the role of a trial lawyer defending his client, and that position doesn't make for very objective analysis.

  26. Richard Witty says:
    February 16, 2009 at 4:25 pm

    Marc,
    Dershowitz is not objective on Israel. Neither is Phil.

    Each are partially true, and EACH selects what to consider relevant and irrelevant.

    Dershowitz' most relevant comment that I consider true, is in his description of selective complaint about Israel by dissenters, that caricature their assessment of other issues and relationships.

    Even Phil's alternations between speaking of Jews and Israelis as US, or even speaking of Americans as "us", compared to speaking of Jews and Israelis or Americans as "them".

    I share his ambiguity. I am part of the US and have a claim to attempt to influence American policy and behavior. And, I am part of Judaic community (including in Israel) and have a claim to at least suggest Israeli policy and behavior.

    At the same time, I intentionally distinguish my Jewish experience in diaspora and safe upper middle class New England, from the Jewish experience of Israelis and European Jews. Our experience is so distinct, so different, as to render my suggestions for Israel at least partially presumptuous.

  27. dana says:
    February 16, 2009 at 5:19 pm

    Ed, I think you misunderstood my point. I was not calling for any "organized jewry" to support anything as that would run counter to my own preference to downplay tribal affiliations. What I was saying is that jewish people who already play a large role in the democratic party are effectively neutralized when dealing with certain issues – especially those relating to foreign policy – precisely BECAUSE they are bogged down in tribal fealties. Which, IMO, are misplaced anyways, but that's another atory. I was basically agreeing with you that where tribal loyalties trump other convictions, true progressivism cannot flourish (which is what I think you were saying).

  28. DICKERSON3870 says:
    February 16, 2009 at 5:37 pm

    RE: "Understanding Dershowitz"

    In my über humble opinion, "Understanding Dershowitz" posits a brilliant 'working hypothesis'! I have never understood how Dershowitz can be so incredibly impressive one minute when discoursing on separation of church and state (in THIS country) and so embarrassingly childish the next minute when defending Israel.

    Additionally, I don't think I have ever had the slightest interest in drag queen shows (excepting perhaps Ru Paul, 'The Lady Chablis', Lindsey and Mitch), but from now on "save me the aisle seat"!

  29. Chris Berel says:
    February 16, 2009 at 5:50 pm

    Dicky, but you ARE the show. We are having a wonderful time being entertained by your bullshit.

  30. Witty's anonymous critic says:
    February 16, 2009 at 8:02 pm

    " Our experience is so distinct, so different, as to render my suggestions for Israel at least partially presumptuous."

    Presumably this applies even more so to any suggestion you might have for Palestinians, who suffer on a much larger scale than the Israelis.

  31. Ed says:
    February 16, 2009 at 8:03 pm

    dana: "jewish people who already play a large role in the democratic party are effectively neutralized when dealing with certain issues – especially those relating to foreign policy – precisely BECAUSE they are bogged down in tribal fealties."

    But are most Jews Democrats because they believe in "progressive" democratic values first, or are they Democrats as a means of advancing their tribal interests first, and because the predominately Christian GOP wasn't historically willing to grant them truck? I don't believe for a second that any Jew that embraces Zionism can simultaneously convincingly call him or herself a (small "d") democrat or progressive (particularly now that real history, as opposed to Zionist-emphasized history that fixates on subjects like the Holocaust without examining the context, is widely available on the internet.)

    A case that the majority of American Jews who support Zionism are simply under sway of some kind of Zionist brainwashing or thought control due to insularity might have been believable ten years ago, but the truth about Israel and Zionism has been out there for quite some time now, and the vast majority of American Jews are still Zionists, and increasingly trenchant about it. I think that speaks for itself as to what their true beliefs and values are. The rest is posturing for power-grabbing purposes.

    Imagine if German Americans who identified as Nazis continued to identify as Nazis even after it was clear what Nazism was all about. At some point, people would have to conclude "Hey, that must be their natural value system, and if I seriously oppose Nazism, I'm sure as hell not going to collaborate with German Nazis on other issues." Yet most Democrats are more than happy to collaborate with Jewish Zionists both on Zionism and on other issues. To my mind, that makes the entire value system and political ideology of the Democrat Party suspect, at best, and possibly the entirety of it a power-grabbing charade being carried out by ruthless "elites" without an iota of idealism behind any of it whatsoever.

    Jews aren't the only people in the country capable of carrying on a cynical, phony-baloney, exploitive and manipulative "victim" act in order to advance their own positions and interests. What other elements of the Democrat Party are doing the same thing? Perhaps all of them. And they're all just using the American people, as the Zionists are.

  32. Citizen says:
    February 17, 2009 at 2:57 pm

    @ Witty

    "Dershowitz is not objective on Israel. Neither is Phil."

    And neither is Witty.

    "Each are partially true, and EACH selects what to consider relevant and irrelevant."

    Ditto for Witty.

    "Dershowitz' most relevant comment that I consider true, is in his description of selective complaint about Israel by dissenters, that caricature their assessment of other issues and relationships."

    We must pick on Israel's policy more than others because, as Americans, said policy is most enabled
    by our tax dollars and politicians, White House, and MSM, and all Americans security both financially
    and in terms of being hated in the world is directly related to AIPAC-Israel right or wrong lock step.

    "Even Phil's alternations between speaking of Jews and Israelis as US, or even speaking of Americans as "us", compared to speaking of Jews and Israelis or Americans as "them"."

    Yes? That's the problem with dual loyalty.

    "I share his ambiguity. I am part of the US and have a claim to attempt to influence American policy and behavior. And, I am part of Judaic community (including in Israel) and have a claim to at least suggest Israeli policy and behavior."

    And I as an American with no right of return to any other nation, need to look out for the best interests of most Americans, who are like me.

    "At the same time, I intentionally distinguish my Jewish experience in diaspora and safe upper middle class New England, from the Jewish experience of Israelis and European Jews. Our experience is so distinct, so different, as to render my suggestions for Israel at least partially presumptuous"

    Yes, I agree, you take the full load benefits of living in and on the USA =rights value system and protected
    by its 99.9% goy American troops. You benefit, but do not pay the price, either in the USA or in Israel.