Dovish Jews? They Love Israel? Excommunicate Them

We don't need them. They'll never see things our way, no matter what. Let them go.

It's a new Israeli approach which borrows from the very worst of our aging instincts. It says: We're moral, our enemies are out to exterminate us along with our state, that's all you need to know. No modifications necessary. Stay the course. Concede nothing. Ease no siege. Give no ground. Ever.

It is a radical redefinition of Postmodern Zionism, this time from the right. Over the past weeks, it's been test-run in our relations with Turkey, with the Goldstone Commission, with Mahmoud Abbas -- and with consistent results.

Now it's about to be tried on North American Jewry, some 6 million strong, a community at a critical crossroads, one that will have lasting and -- if mishandled -- dangerous consequences for Israel.

The opening shot was fired this month by the former chairman of the Governing Board of the World Jewish Congress, Isi Liebler, who declared it "our obligation to confront the enemy within -- renegade Jews -- including Israelis who stand at the vanguard of global efforts to demonize and delegitimize the Jewish state."

"Such odious Jews can be traced back to apostates during the Middle Ages who fabricated blood libels and vile distortions of Jewish religious practice for Christian anti-Semites to incite hatred which culminated in massacres," Liebler wrote in the Jerusalem Post. "It was in response to these renegades that the herem [excommunication] was introduced."

Citing the example of Jewish communists who applauded Stalinist executions of fellow Jews on trumped-up charges, Liebler added, "Like their contemporary counterparts, some of them attempted to depict themselves as devoted Jews championing 'world peace.'"

Among these counterparts, it develops, is J Street, the new dovish lobbying organization which describes itself as pro-Israel and pro-peace. Writing ahead of J Street's first annual national conference, which begins on Sunday in Washington, Liebler argued that although J Street and other U.S. Jewish groups critical of Israel may describe themselves as Zionist, "their prime objective is to pressure the U.S. government to use 'tough love' against Israel -- a euphemism for demanding that the Jewish state make further unilateral concessions to neighbors pledged to its annihilation."

. . . .

Israel's official response to J Street, which though less than two years old has been described as a counterweight to AIPAC, has gone from chill to cold-shoulder.

Months after inviting Israel's Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren to address the conference, J Street last week renewed its request. It noted research which has shown younger Jews increasingly alienated from the Jewish community and from Israel, and increasingly questioning many of Israel's right-wing policies, public statements, and actions.

The erudite, often outspoken Oren had been uncharacteristically mum in response to the request, despite, or perhaps because of, the long list of some 150 U.S. senators and members of Congress which J Street has published as honorary hosts of a gala dinner during the conference. The list has apparently dismayed both AIPAC and conservative commentators.

When an answer finally came, it came in the form of a slap. "In response to the question about J Street's invitation to participate in its conference, the Embassy of Israel has been privately communicating its concerns over certain policies of the organization that may impair the interests of Israel," the embassy said in a statement, an apparent reference to such J Street positions as support for the Obama administration's push for an absolute settlement freeze, and the group's opposition to immediate sanctions against Iran.

"Accordingly, the embassy will send an observer to the conference and will follow its proceedings with interest."

In rebuffing the invitation, the ambassador has erred gravely. Instead, he should have shown up, spoken forthrightly on the ways Israel's government views the future differently from J Street and the other dovish groups co-sponsoring the gathering. Together, they represent a growing segment of the future of U.S. Jewry, a community with which Israel cannot afford to lose touch.

To slight the conference is to dismiss the deep love of Israel felt by many of its critics abroad. To send a low-level diplomat in place of the ambassador sends a message which in some respects can only please Isi Liebler, and the subtext of his message: These doves, they're not really pro-Israel. They can't be. They're doves. And they're not really Jews. How could they be? Not only are they doves, most of them aren't even Orthodox.

Liebler, meanwhile, has another plan. Because Benjamin Netanyahu is "currently riding a wave after his superb United Nations address," Liebler writes, he should convene a global Jewish solidarity conference of Jewish leaders, opinion makers, philanthropists and activists "in order to demonstrate the unity of the Jewish people."

And what of J Street and the spectrum of Jewish leftists and peace advocates? The world unity conference would deal with them as well. According to Liebler, "in addition to encouraging millions of Jews in the Diaspora who remain committed to Israel to become more actively engaged in our struggle, such a gathering would also provide an opportunity to exorcise the renegades from out of our midst."

For the full post, please see Haaretz.com http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1122104.html

 

 

Follow Bradley Burston on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bradleyburston

Comments

[califlefty]

I find the full frontal PR assault by the J-streeters really laughable. They've been throwing rocks at the bus for so long they just can't figure out why they can't ride.

[Sentientbeing09]

Heh. Two years. Thats all theyve been around for.

Whats laughable is the reaction by people like AIPAC with the progress JStreet has made in such a short time.

[TerrapinCB]

"As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. "

-Quote from a true US President named George

[GZLives]

I assume that by posting this you are inferring that the Jews/Israel are controlling America?

[eileenflemingWAWA]

RE: Bibi's "superb" Orwellian United Nations address, i cite William Blake, who penned:

"Always be ready to speak your mind and a base man will avoid you. Opposition is True Friendship."

Bibi said: "Have you no shame? Have you no decency? What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations!"

I say : Have you no shame? Have you no decency? What a disgrace! What a mockery you make of the United Nations and what a lie you perpetuate by denying the facts regarding Israel's Dec-Jan. attack on Gaza!

One example: The rocket fire directed at Israel was practically zero in the months preceding the attacks, [and] Hamas [made] repeated efforts to extend the ceasefire indefinitely provided Israel lifted its unlawful blockade of Gaza.

Further it was Israel that had seemed to provoke the breakdown of the ceasefire when it launched a lethal attack on Hamas militants in Gaza on November 4, 2008. Israel disregarded this seemingly available diplomatic alternative to war to achieve security on its borders. Recourse to war, even if the facts justify self-defense, is according to international law, a last resort!

http://www.wearewideawake.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1441&Itemid=224

[StCuthbert]

And how can you, Eileen, accuse Netanyahu and then turn around and lie yourself?

"The rocket fire directed at Israel was practically zero". *Practically* zero? What a transparent distortion. Either the rocket fire was zero, or it was not. No practicality there.

"Hamas [made] repeated efforts to extend the ceasefire indefinitely provided Israel lifted its unlawful blockade of Gaza."

Hamas also declared war on Israel days before Israel attacked. Look up Operation Oil Stain.

"Israel that had seemed to provoke the breakdown of the ceasefire when it launched a lethal attack on Hamas militants in Gaza on November 4, 2008"

How convenient that you forgot to include the "lethal attack" was against a smuggling tunnel, itself a violation of the cease-fire. It is clear Hamas never abided by the cease-fire, but you chose to blame Israel for causing the breakdown. Incredibly dishonest.

[TheLonelyGod]

If I might offer a possible explanation, take a look at this one quotation here:

"their prime objective is to pressure the U.S. government to use 'tough love' against Israel -- a euphemism for demanding that the Jewish state make further unilateral concessions to neighbors pledged to its annihilation."

I'm not going to pursue that "annihilation" strawman any more, but the 'tough love' thing is hugely important for understanding the reaction to J Street.
These are Americans, who do not live in Israel and are not put at risk by Israel's decisions. Nor (one can assume) are their families and close friends going to be put at risk either. But they are telling Israel what is "good for it" and what they should be doing. And then they are surprised when Israel doesn't roll over and plead with them for more of their esteemed advice? *No* country likes being told what to do!

Consider this: Israel (in general) used to be very left-wing and very willing to hand out concessions. In many ways they still are. But in the post-Oslo years, even the Israeli left has come to realize that simply giving the Palestinians things doesn't lead to peace:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1107600.html

The American left, on the other hand, seems to be a bit behind the times. They are still thinking in a post-Oslo way, and want Israel to repeat the mistakes that it has made a decade ago.

[eileenflemingWAWA]

Let's get HONEST about the canard RE: Israel's "annihilation"

In 2006, Virginia Tilley, Professor of political science wrote:

"In his October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad never used the word 'map' or the term 'wiped off.' According to Farsi-language experts like Juan Cole and even right-wing services like MEMRI, what he actually said was 'this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.'

"In this speech to an annual anti-Zionist conference, Mr. Ahmadinejad was being prophetic, not threatening. He was citing Imam Khomeini, who said this line in the 1980s-a period when Israel was actually selling arms to Iran, so apparently it was not viewed as so ghastly then.

"Mr. Ahmadinejad had just reminded his audience that the Shah's regime, the Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein had all seemed enormously powerful and immovable, yet the first two had vanished almost beyond recall and the third now languished in prison.

"So, too, the "occupying regime" in Jerusalem would someday be gone. His message was, in essence: "This too shall pass."

http://www.wearewideawake.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1426&Itemid=224

[TheLonelyGod]

Point 1: I was in agreement that the whole "annihilation" thing was uncalled for and baseless.

Point 2: This article wasn't relating to Iran.

[eileenflemingWAWA]

RE: "simply giving the Palestinians things doesn't lead to peace"

Palestinians have been asking for: An End to the Military Occupation, Equal Human Rights for ALL and the honoring of International Law.

And as a spiritual progressive, I add that the raping and pillaging of what is claimed holy ground refutes and denies the biblical meaning of dominion. The ancients understood dominion meant to nurture, love and protect but the destruction of Palestinian homes, the stealing and destroying of their legal property, has got to be an abomination unto God as well as a crime against humanity.

"From Moses to Jeremiah and Isaiah, the Prophets taught...that the Jewish claim on the land of Israel was totally contingent on the moral and spiritual life of the Jews who lived there, and that the land would, as the Torah tells us, 'vomit you out' if people did not live according to the highest moral vision of Torah. Over and over again, the Torah repeated its most frequently stated mitzvah [command]:

"When you enter your land, do not oppress the stranger; the other, the one who is an outsider of your society, the powerless one and then not only 'you shall love your neighbor as yourself' but also 'you shall love the other.'"

http://www.wearewideawake.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=631&Itemid=176

[Rog49Thomas]

I think it's very enlightening to look at the popular perception of the Divinity in the three major Abrahamic religions.

In two of them, He's big in real estate.

In the oldest, He's portrayed as a land developer: "God gave this land to me" as the song goes.

In the next, He's William Levitt with a heavenly development: "in my father's house are many mansions".

And in the youngest, He's Hugh Heffner. (72 virgins)

All of which speaks volumes about the smallness of the human mind and heart when confronted with the reality of the Divinity.

[Rog49Thomas]

A very interesting post which raises some very interesting questions.

(1) Is it your contention that US citizens who happen to be Jews owe a special duty to Israel?

That is, while they might criticize this or that US foreign or domestic policy, when it comes to Israel their normal rights as citizens of the USA no longer apply or must be surrendered?

(2) Is it your contention that US Jews have lesser rights than the folks back "home" in the "Holy" Land?

There are many in Israel who have criticized policies of the Israeli Govt in terms that would not be considered acceptable in the USA. There are members of the IDF (Shovrim Shtika) who have complained about atrocities during Operation Cast Lead. There are groups like Bt'Selem, HaMoked, ICAHD, and others who routinely criticize what they find objectionable. And so objectionable are they that Brother Bibi wants to prohibit these NGOs from getting foreign funding to slience their voices.

Does Sol from Brooklyn have a lesser right to speak out that Dov Yermiya - Sabra, IDF war hero who just recently renounced Zionism?

Especially when compared to these folks, J Street are tame critics.

[TheLonelyGod]

Interesting how you seemed to jump immediately into the language of rights and obligations.

I made no mention of US Jews in general, nor their relationship with Israel. I am not saying that J Street shouldn't be allowed to say what they want. Read my post more carefully before you respond, please.

What I am saying is that J Street shouldn't be so surprised when their presumptuous attitudes provoke a backlash from the Israelis that they are trying to help.

[alysheba 3]

Perhaps the Israeli government needs to look at the GOP as an example of what happens when you let extremists rule the roost.

[Thabit]

Maybe the GOP should immigrate to israel , they would probably be happier there and they already agree with whatever the israeli government says before they even hear it

[lbsaltzman]

This blog is absolutely correct. I don't think the Israeli government or people have a clue how many Jews in this country are turned off by Israel's war crimes committed against both the Palestinians and the Lebanese. Israel and her supporters also don't realize how angry many of us are at the insults we have endured for simply disagreeing with Israeli government decisions and daring to criticize those decisions.

Ironically J Street is the most moderate and pro-Israeli of all the Jewish peace groups working to end the occupation of Palestine. Ending the occupation is the moral thing to do, and something that many of us recognize is good for both Israel and Jews around the world. Jews everywhere have been painted with the crimes that Israel commits, because Israel has the arrogance to claim they speak in all our names, which is emphatically not true.

[phute]

I don't think Liebler will get very far - his inter personal skills sound so awful as to be positively comical.
Who on earth is going to react favourably to being called 'an odious Jew' and branded a facillitator of anti Semitism? Especially if these people are Jewish to begin with? How offensive is that?
This man is shocking - literally.

[StCuthbert]

"This man is shocking - literally."

He zaps you with electricity?

[phute]

st cuthbert - he's offensive.
Very offensive - shockingly offensive.
But don't let that put you off making yet more attempts at diverting from the issues raised in Burston's piece.

[TheLonelyGod]

Maybe he has a problem with static cling.