News

J Street presses division inside Jewish community, blaming neocons for leading ‘charge to war in Iraq’

The other day we reported on an effort by the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League to maintain a Jewish political monolith on Israel– essentially, don’t argue in front of the goyim because it could fracture American support for Israel.

Well interestingly, neither “the left” nor the right in the Jewish community is buying the pledge. They want the fight! This is something I have long pushed for. Unfortunately, it’s a political battle over How Zionist the Jewish Community Will Be– extreme or mild. But it does portend a battle over Zionism itself.

And good for J Street, the “left” in this battle, for foregrounding the right wing’s support for the Iraq war.

J Street has now issued two statements in this battle, lately taking on the neoconservatives as the faction in the Jewish community that pushed the Iraq war and wants a Greater Israel:

There’s a part of our community – represented by the Emergency Committee for Israel – whose supporters led the charge to war in Iraq, who ally with the Christian Zionist movement, and who affiliate with the Tea Party. This part of the community sees nothing wrong with unlimited settlement expansion and no need to actively pursue a two-state resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They seem perfectly content to affiliate with those who engage in hate-filled harangues and to demonize Palestinians – and Arabs and Muslims generally – without reservation and to engage in campaigns of smears against their opponents.

There’s another part of our community – for which J Street speaks – that believes that Israel’s security and survival depends on ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a two-state solution and that is deeply committed to American leadership in helping that to happen

And here is the rightwing also declining the pledge, reported by Haaretz:

A couple of days after the pledge landed in the mailboxes of the Jewish activists, Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) Executive Director Matt Brooks issued a combative response, saying: “This effort to stifle debate on U.S. policy toward Israel runs counter to this American tradition. Accordingly, the RJC will not be silenced on this or any issue.”

“An open and vigorous debate on the questions confronting our country is the cornerstone of the American electoral process. Allowing the American people to see where candidates stand, pro and con, on critical issues, is the hallmark of our free and democratic political system. For this reason, the RJC will not be a signer to this pledge,” he concluded.

Emergency Committee for Israel joined the opposition to the pledge with a blunt opening: “You must be kidding” and promised that “this attempt to silence those of us who have “questioned the current administration’s foreign policy approach vis-a-vis Israel” will re-energize us… Directors Harris and Foxman need a refresher course on the virtues of free speech and robust debate in a democracy. Their effort to stifle discussion and debate is unworthy of the best traditions of America, and of Israel.”

140 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“Well interestingly, neither “the left” nor the right in the Jewish community is buying the pledge. They want the fight! This is something I have long pushed for. Unfortunately, it’s a political battle over How Zionist the Jewish Community Will Be– extreme or mild. But it does portend a battle over Zionism itself.”

Things are moving at glacial speed, Phil, but they do seem to be moving.

their effort to stifle discussion and debate is unworthy of the best traditions of America and of Israel?

then once america invaded iraq where was the debate about making war upon that nation

and where’s the debate about u.s. support for israel’s occupation of palestine

and what about the debate (not) on global warming?

Though just a sentence, this is very important. The connection between right wing Israel support and lobbying for the Iraq war was the basis of a key chapter of W&M’s book, and the one most of the establishment push-back was directed against. But the intensity of the push-back “worked” in that it seemed to inhibit others from subsequent mention of this very obvious connection.

Political battles within these Israel Firster organizations and lobby groups ARE NOT what needs to occur to change AMERICAN POLICY.

Yes, I’d love to see the situation change in Israel. It would be fantastic if the Palestinians were finally treated as actual human beings.

But the UNITED STATES is my concern. OUR POLICIES are my concern. OUR WORLD STANDING is my concern. OUR SECURITY is my concern. THE INTEGRITY OF OUR LEADERS is my concern.

Frankly, I simply don’t give a rat’s ass about Israel, or J-Street, or AIPAC. Their differing opinions about how to put concerns about Israel ahead of concerns about our own country don’t interest me.

J-Street is not an advocacy group for MY COUNTRY. Nor is it an advocacy group for the MAJORITY in my country. It is no more my “friend” than AIPAC is. J-Street isn’t gonna advocate for our leaders to stop pissing away my tax dollars to Israel. J-Street isn’t going to advocate for less Israeli meddling in our foreign and domestic affairs. J-Street isn’t going to advocate that Congress become less Israelicentric.

These “battles” do NOTHING for me as an American citizen. And I doubt, in the end, if they will do jack shit for the Palestinians. Frankly, I wish BOTH organizations would pack their bags and GTF out of MY COUNTRY. I’m sick of a minority people playing such an undeserved and pivotal role in our governance, our expenditures, and our military adventures. Go home. You want a “Jewish State”??? Build it in Israel, and leave us alone.

american commented about this last night and also alerted us to this article in tablet called “Is Israel an Appropriate Political Issue? Brouhaha over ADL pledge sets stage for heated election year”.

For pro-Israel Americans of a right-wing, Republican bent, the conundrum is this: You don’t want to so successfully cast President Obama as Israel’s foe and then have him win re-election. Because then the American people will have elected an anti-Israel candidate; in that scenario, the president owes you nothing; worse, he would have been elected despite being who you say he is, and therefore his mandate, if anything, would be to do all the things the right says he secretly wants to do, like divide Jerusalem, support the terrorists, etc.

to me ‘the pledge’ means keeping the argument ‘in house’ iow, within the jewish community. but i’m interested in this argument about israel to break out to include all of us because it is an american conversation that impacts all of us. there is no reason a jewish american should have any more voice in our foreign policy wrt israel than i do. so let the fight burst out of the jewish community into the streets!