Jack Ross responds to the earlier post on Rabbis for Human Rights:
I don't follow them as closely as your other correspondent,
though I'm proud to say that I belong to the congregation of one of
their most vocal members, Ellen Lippmann, from whom I happen to know
that there is a growing rift between their Israeli and American
branches. Without being able to speak authoritatively, I see no reason
why RHR can be accused of anything which J Street can not. I have,
however, always been mystified as to why they don't get the flak other
groups do, and if they decide they need to break with their more
moderate elements there can be little doubt that they will.
And here is Ross on Eric Alterman, the liberal lobby event:
Alterman is a funny guy - many years ago he was a notable liberal
cheerleader for Bill Buckley's purge of Gulf War opponents, and for the view that he was purging anti-Semites. Then he became
the foremost defender on the left of Walt and Mearsheimer when they
first came out and then seemed to have a breach with The Nation when
they attacked the book and he had to publish his great piece on Marty
Peretz in the American Prospect. So now he's backpedaling, though he
probably is very disturbed by everything happening around him,
understandable in human terms.
He was absolutely right though to say that the Freeman episode was about Iran more than anything else, that is, keeping the proverbial option on the table of attacking Iran. But Ben-Ami was also right to say that the neocon blogosphere probably deserves a lot more credit then AIPAC in this case. Of course I share your angst about notions of keeping it inside the Jewish tent and sympathy for J Street in this connection, its hard to say to what degree Alterman is truly in conflict with such a notion.
He was absolutely right though to say that the Freeman episode was about Iran more than anything else, that is, keeping the proverbial option on the table of attacking Iran. But Ben-Ami was also right to say that the neocon blogosphere probably deserves a lot more credit then AIPAC in this case. Of course I share your angst about notions of keeping it inside the Jewish tent and sympathy for J Street in this connection, its hard to say to what degree Alterman is truly in conflict with such a notion.
Does Jack agree that 9/11 was worth it for Israel, as Alterman does.
Does Jack have a problem with Alterman presenting himself as a liberal, seemingly antiwar voice who presumably harbors humanistic qualities, to his audience at The Nation, while at the same time saying, in so many words, that 9/11 was worth for it Israel, to a Jewish audience at a Jewish meeting?
Dan, I appreciated that he said it. If explains something we all could watch closely: A curious exaltation about the Iraq war and more to come. Many, many net warriors, an Anti-Arab hype. Plus academic support: Attempts to compare and parallel Anti-Americanism and Anti-Semitism. To name just one of many things … Besides that was exactly my spontaneous interpretation of the high fiving movers in NY. And I am very pleased nowadays, if someone in these enlightened circles says something that feels part of my reality.
My question to Ross would be. Did Rabbi Steve Gutow speak for Rabbi Ellen Lippman too, when he said around 43:** the whole Jewish American Community supported the Gaza war.
For whatever reason, there are one or two passage that reminded me of something Richard said early. This is a strictly Jewish matter, nothing for curious non-Jews or potential antisemites. The BDS movement is more open, it needs supporters. Human right doesn't have these barriers.