The blogosphere is buzzing about an essay by Peter Beinart in the New York Review of Books. Beinart convincingly denounces the Israel-right-or-wrong mantra of mainstream American Jewish organizations. He is justifiably worried about the future of "an American Zionist movement that does not even feign concern for Palestinian dignity."
But for all of its many good points, his essay betrays a surprising ignorance of American Jewish organizational life. Like me, he wants more American Jews who identify with Israel to publicly distance themselves from the occupation and Israeli policies they find abhorrent. But he apparently believes that traditional American Jews groups and their leaders have the capacity to completely change their stripes and do what he recommends. According to Beinart:
The heads of AIPAC and the Presidents' Conference should ask themselves what Israel's leaders would have to do or say to make them scream "no." After all, Lieberman is foreign minister; Effi Eitam [a Netanyahu appointee who has openly recommended ethnic cleansing] is touring American universities; settlements are growing at triple the rate of the Israeli population; half of Israeli Jewish high school students want Arabs barred from the Knesset. If the line has not yet been crossed, where is the line?
There is no line and there never will be. Asking AIPAC and the most powerful players in the Presidents' Conference to publicly criticize Israeli policy is like asking a dog to play poker. Beinart is urging a violation of the laws of nature, of organizational DNA. AIPAC and the leaders of the Presidents Conference are--and probably always will be--guided by the credo that differences with Israel can be voiced behind closed doors but never in the open air.
Beinart concludes his essay by urging "American Jewish organizations" to bring to Hillel some of the young Israelis who are regularly protesting the expropriation of Arab housing in Sheikh Jarrah, in East Jerusalem. "What if this was the face of Zionism shown to America's young?" That is a lovely idea but it is mystifying that he somehow expects the hidebound Jewish establishment to make it real.
He ignores the recent growth of a ready-made alternative that already exists, a decidedly pro-Israel movement that is willing to be critical of Israeli policies that perpetuate the occupation. I am referring to J Street, Americans for Peace Now, Ameinu and other groups that are apparently not on Beinart's radar screen.
In Israel, he notes, 'humane, universalistic Zionism does not wield power. To the contrary, it is gasping for air." But he hasn't noticed that it is very much alive in the American Jewish community, and there are organizations doing a good job of spreading the credo of this blog, i.e., progressive and pro-Israel need not be an oxymoron. To be sure, the organizations in this camp are still smaller than the groups in the Israel-right-or-wrong crowd. But the organized dovish camp is growing, and it is growing louder. Beinart's smart essay correctly diagnoses the disease but desparately reaches for a cure among groups like the Presidents Conference and AIPAC, instead of identifying the real sources of hope and health in the American Jewish community.
This post was originally published at Realistic Dove.
Have a look at the interview with Dershowitz in the Jerusalem Post weekly magazine :
Dershowitz claims he agrees with 80% of J Streets agenda. "I started out supporting J Street... Its leaders are good people, and their positions are mostly positions that I can support. But they’re trying to build an organization. Therefore they’re not having a litmus test. They’re inviting people from the extreme, extreme Left to come in. And that’s a problem with organization building. There are many within J Street who don’t want to call themselves a pro-Israel, pro-peace lobby,"
The sad truth is that Israeli right-wingers are correct about one thing": In the current political environment in Israel, one really can't be "pro-Israel and pro-peace," as J Street claims to be. It is (sadly) an oxymoron.
The humanitarian, kinder, gentler Zionism that Beinart and Fleshler both hope will seize control of the debate and carry the day is a train that left the station a long time ago. Israel's leadership has bombed the tracks claiming that they lead only to Auschwitz. Those of us who have been on it know that the opposite is true, but it is also clear that the peace train isn't coming back, no matter how many more people, young and old, get on it.
Dershowitz claims he agrees with 80% of J Streets agenda. "I started out supporting J Street... Its leaders are good people, and their positions are mostly positions that I can support. But they’re trying to build an organization. Therefore they’re not having a litmus test. They’re inviting people from the extreme, extreme Left to come in. And that’s a problem with organization building. There are many within J Street who don’t want to call themselves a pro-Israel, pro-peace lobby,"
The sad truth is that Israeli right-wingers are correct about one thing": In the current political environment in Israel, one really can't be "pro-Israel and pro-peace," as J Street claims to be. It is (sadly) an oxymoron.
The humanitarian, kinder, gentler Zionism that Beinart both hope will seize control of the debate and carry the day is a train that left the station a long time ago. Israel's leadership has bombed the tracks claiming that they lead only to Auschwitz. Those of us who have been on it know that the opposite is true, but it is also clear that the peace train isn't coming back, no matter how many more people, young and old, get on it.
Like I said...this sounds like a cheap and intellectually dishonest way to criticize any criticism of those "traditional" Israeli advocacy groups. That's all.
During the Oslo period, BTW, the Presidents Conference was passive and didn't do very much at all to help support Rabin and Peres; but it certainly didn't criticize the Israeli government. Individual groups like the Zionist Organization of America did so. The credo of "no daylight" between official Israeli and American positions may well become less popular in the commnuity at large, but it remains the credo of the organizations that purport to represent the mainstream community in Washington.
Without mincing words I believe the author is guilty of what he says AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations does...i.e. believing that public criticism should not happen...except he seems to believe it is these arch-zionist organizations that should not be criticized. Instead, I guess, he thinks we and Beinart and all other Jews should take it easy on them and let them "be themselves" because they are only doing what they naturally do: which is support Israel unquestioningly. Horse-Hockey!
First of all, what kind of, amoral logic is that? No one should criticize or admonish different action from a person or group if they are following their "laws of nature"? That it is better to just rely on good ol' J-Street et al to be that little bit of progressivism and let AIPAC be AIPAC? Is he serious?
And strangely he concludes that Beinart must know nothing of J-street and other moderate/liberal voices because his article does not mention. He says that, but later states the obvious reason: That J-Street and it's like-minded Jewish organizations are so much considerably smaller...compared to the money and influence of AIPAC et al. I mean that is incredibly disingenuous. I guess in a literature class you would call it hyperbole or suspension of belief or something like that.
You are shockingly wrong to say it is not worth it to hold what Beinart appropriately calls the "Jewish Establishment." accountable. I am SHOCKED that you would pooh pooh such a stance. Whether or not it works, it is well worth the effort.
Your reaction seems to reflect the typically insular approach of the Jewish community. I think you have been Stovepiped my Abe and Malcolm.