The angry response to Walt and Mearsheimer’s writing on the Israel lobby was never about whether they were right or wrong. It was about the fear on the part of an empowered group that their power was being called out and questioned; and the righteousness of the response was a reflection of what a solemn duty the lobby has in Jewish life. The lobby is the guardian in the American power centers of Jewish lives abroad, because you really can’t trust gentiles to watch out for Jewish lives.
This sacred mission (as Dershowitz calls it) comes across in a speech by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren, reported by Josh Nathan-Kazis in the Forward:
After a speech that touched on the spiritual basis for and the threats to the state of Israel, Oren issued an unscripted condemnation of J Street.
“This is not a matter of settlements here [or] there. We understand there are differences of opinion,” Oren said. “But when it comes to the survival of the Jewish state, there should be no differences of opinion. You are fooling around with the lives of 7 million people. This is no joke.”
The Jewish generation that built and operates the Israel lobby, people in their 40s, 50s, and on up, who were energized by the ’67 and ’73 wars, largely accepts this responsibility. They do so with the backdrop of the Holocaust; in which they regard the U.S. as in some ways complicit. The changes in Jewish identity construction that we are pushing here depend on the younger generation, who do not see any criticism of Israel as a threat to Jewish lives.
By the way, J Street rejected Oren’s assertions in the Forward. Said Jeremy Ben-Ami:
“Perhaps if he would meet with us, he could actually find out what we stand for, rather than having to misrepresent our position… I don’t quite understand how it is in the State of Israel’s interest to look at J Street as a problem, to write off an organization that represents a large number of American Jews.”
I suppose there should be some fortune in that the Zionist assault on Jews outside of Israel is nowhere near as powerful as their assault on Palestinians. But it is still remarkably intense.
“You are fooling around with the lives of 7 million people. This is no joke.”
It would help him to remember that the Palestinians are the one who’s survival is question. Abbas should hire him for PR.
The ideology is a zero sum one. How does this differ from Hitler’s? It’s true the Jews in power have not gassed any Palestinians. The test of virtue is always power. But what they’ve been doing with the Palestinians, considering how innocent the Palestinians are to what the Jews endured over world history, raises the question: IF jews never deserved their fate over world history, shouldn’t we also consider they were never the least powerful group in any Gentile host nation?
“The changes in Jewish identity construction that we are pushing here depend on the younger generation, who do not see any criticism of Israel as a threat to Jewish lives.”
This is an interesting assertion that Phil Weiss is making. The criticisms here on this web site, both by the writers and by the more reasonable of the commenters, are not just “any criticism of Israel” but rather a desire to see the dissolution of Israel and its reconstitution as a single democratic state, full speed ahead, damn the torpedos. Pretending as if the example of Lebanon does not constitute a cautionary tale where Hezbollah is now de facto army of Lebanon. The reconstitution of Jewish identity that Phil Weiss is pushing is to disregard any danger to Jewish lives as long as it conforms to a humanistic democracy that has not been established anywhere else in the Middle East.
And why does Hezbollah exist at all? Funny, you never want to talk about any of the invasions and occupations, do you?
Hezbollah originally came into existence as a result of Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon which occurred as a result of a fight that Israel had with the PLO, which was at war with Israel and was situated in southern Lebanon. Israel occupied southern Lebanon for approximately 18 years and then withdrew from southern Lebanon. The UN asserted that this withdrawal from southern Lebanon was complete.
In granting Hezbollah’s right to bear arms the Lebanese government referred to the occupation of two pieces of land. One of the pieces of land that was referred to is claimed by Syria. Lebanon and Syria have not clarified to whom this piece of land belongs.
The occupation of Syrian territory,(and Egypt’s Sinai and the West Bank of the Jordan river which was claimed by Jordan before the war occurred) all resulted from the June 67 war. On November 22, 1967 the UN Security council passed resolution 242 which asserted that territory occupied in the six day war should be exchanged for peace, security and recognition of all states. It is generally accepted that this meant that negotiations should be held so that the sides of the war should decide on the exchange of land for peace and recognition. Even though the term “territories” was used rather than “the territories” or “all the territories”, in the negotiation with Egypt all the territories seized in the six day war were exchanged for peace. It was generally accepted by the five members of the Security Council who voted for resolution 242 that the borders might require some minor changes and those changes would be arrived at through negotiations.
WJ,
Are Israeli-Jewish lives safeguarded now? Would they be safeguarded by a two-state solution? What about Palestinian lives? Are they safeguarded now? Would they be safeguarded by a two-state solution? Assuming that Israeli-Jewish well-being is contingent upon Palestinian well-being, isn’t an argument based exclusively on the safeguarding of Israeli-Jewish life self-contradictory and ultimately self-defeating? Furthermore why should an argument that places greater value on Jewish life be supported by non-Jews in general and Palestinians in particular?
“Damn the torpedoes”? “Disregard any danger to human lives”? I think you’ve missed the entire point.
Interesting that you don’t see it as an attempt to save Palestinian lives and liberate Palestinian people.
Wait. What?The US is regarded as being “in some ways complicit” in the Holocaust?
That is certainly an odd definition of complicity. True, the US didn’t open it borders to wave after wave of European refugees, nor did it expend blood and treasure solely for the benefit of beleagered Jews, but that is hardly the same as being complicit.
This definition of complicity is somewhat more like Hitler’s definition of complicity in which he held Jews to be responsible for the crimes of the Bolsheviks and the mass murder of Ukrainians in the Holodomor.
Basically, its bunk.