I gather this Eric Alterman piece on J Street ran in the International Herald Tribune. Why not the New York Times op-ed page, or the Washington Post? When will the orthodox challenge the orthodoxy?
Commentary’s Noah Pollak called J Street contemptible, dishonest and anti-Israel; James Kirchick of The New Republic called it the Surrender Lobby; Michael Goldfarb of The Weekly Standard said it was obsequious to terrorists and hostile to Israel.
Perhaps, but it is at least equally plausible to view the intemperance of their language as evidence of panic. The days of right-ruled American Jewish debate appear to be numbered, and with good reason.
No other nation on earth, save perhaps Israel, treats the Middle Eastern conflict as the United States does, with the Palestinians viewed exclusively as the irrational attackers and Israel as aggrieved innocents.
Yet, however costly and controversial, the policies continue almost unchanged from administration to administration, and Congress to Congress, dominated by the hardline positions of Aipac.
“The days of right-ruled American Jewish debate appear to be numbered, and with good reason.” (Alterman, commenting on articles by Pollack, Kirchick, and Goldfarb).
Perhaps. But I shall believe that things are actually changing when it is no longer just a “Jewish debate”, when non-Jewish commentators are allowed to say things in the media that are critical of Israel and the US relationship. And to do so without the expectation that their careers will be destroyed (cf. Chas Freeman and countless others).
As long as it remains simply a “Jewish debate”, the radical Zionists will win because, strangely, they hold the cards within the American Jewish community. I say “strangely” because the purposes of the radical Zionists are inimical to the true interests of the American Jewish community.
the radical Zionists will win because, strangely, they hold the cards within the American Jewish community.
Nothing strange about it, fear is the strongest impulse, and authoritarians can always revert to it.
And for such a huge issue to be narrowly framed as the inter-Jewish debate on what to do in the West Bank is missing a lot of the story.
Dead right. And I think that day is coming, and soon. Maybe it’s because I’ve been coming to this site for so long – thank you Phil and Adam – but I’ve found my backbone stiffened even in polite cocktail conversations, and it is working to my advantage. I dont back down when someone hurls the anti-semitism epithet at me for even discussing Israeli politics. I get called called anti-semitic for even opening up my mouth sometimes, deigning to discuss the Middle East. I no longer make any effort to separate out Jews and Israelis in the minefield of the conversations, you know, that introductory speech about the difference between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism, etc etc; I treat it all as normal now. “You’re anti-semitic!” “How can you say that about the Jews!” I’m not discussing Jews, I say, I’m discussing Israelis. “But they’re the same thing!” That’s your problem, I will answer, I’m talking about Israeli policies and what Israelis do, and what Israelis do is not necessarily what Americans do or want done.
You have to keep hammering at it. I’ve raised a few eyebrows; and I’ve had a couple of hostesses take deep breaths and roll their eyes. (I know I’ve been uninvited to a few of those parties as a result.) But the stakes are huge now for all of us, as Americans. With supercharged nutcases like Bolton running around calling for nukes against Iran to ‘protect Israel’, which he’s going to do at a synagogue in a week, we have to stand up to this insanity. Neither Israelis nor American Jews can claim any exclusivity on the issue – not anymore – when nuclear actions threaten the existence of every American life, not to mention the world’s. A first use of nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive war? Think about it. It’s unthinkable.
“The days of right-ruled American Jewish debate …”
It’s nothing to do with right-rule, or left-rule. There are some issues that just can’t be shoe-horned into the left-right interpretive framework and Zionism is one of them. The first step to defeating your enemy is naming it correctly, and sloppy thinking like Alterman’s is just going to prolong the battle.
You are both right and wrong here. It is true that significant opposition to US Israeli policy can be found on the right with the paleoconservatives so in the broader context of American politics it is not a left-right issue. Within the American Jewish community things are different — to on the right means support for the colonization of the West Bank.
And to be on the left means…?
I agree that wise people of vision should quit using the words “right” and “left.” Neither coherently describe a consistent political view – (is an anti-Zionist pacifist believer in the free market left or right? Stalin? Hitler?) – but from a marketing, advertising, and psycholinguistic point of view the “right” has a great advantage over “left.” “Right” means “correct.” We say “right on,” “right away!” “human rights” “right thinking” “do the right thing!” The name Benjamin means “son of the right.” Meanwhile one can be “left out,” “left over,” “left behind,” “sinister” (left in Italian) “gauche” (left in French), and in most parts of the world where water is used instead of paper the left hand is used for hygienic purposes and the right hand for eating and greeting people. What sorry marketing. Whatever one’s beliefs are, one should never use the label “left” to describe oneself or let others do it to us. Let’s put a stop to this bad languaging.
Where will we go when the left v. right dichotomy becomes boring? Will we go back to the Zionist v. non-Zionist model, or will we be told that the situation in Palestine is just too complex to understand or solve? The exact nature of Jewish identity (if there even is one) could be revisited! Shoud we all just prepare for another round of being tarred as anti-Semites? That’s the safe bet!