Alan,
I appreciate your acknowledgment that there is an American national interest in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I find it amusing that you casually say "of course" there is such an interest since that is what Obama administration officials have been saying and J Street has been arguing, as well. What must account for the diatribe you launched against me and against J Street is the use, in my letter to the New York Times, of the single word "critical" to modify that "interest."
You and I have, it appears, a policy-based disagreement over the depth of the American interest in resolving the conflict, not over the existence of that interest. That's fine - and represents something worthy of further discussion not only between us but in the public policy journals, halls of academia and in government. But I hope you'll acknowledge that it's not worthy of the kind of invective you engaged in, and I would be open to an apology for that.
Not wanting to leave a question unanswered - while still aiming to bring this dialogue to a close - I note that in your most recent post, you ask whether J Street believes that Israel should "have the right to decide" whether to attack Iran should all else fail to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and whether the United States should "seek to prevent Israel from acting on that decision as an absolute last resort."
Interestingly, I think you're expecting this to be difficult in some way for J Street to answer, when in reality it's quite easy.
Both Israel and the United States are independent, sovereign nations - and do therefore have every right to make decisions that their governments determine to be in their national interest. Of course, Israel has the "right" to make such a decision. What J Street is concerned about is whether a decision that it has the "right to make" is in fact the right one. Similarly the United States should act in its own self-interest. If those responsible for making U.S. foreign policy determine that American interests would be damaged by an Israeli military strike, then of course, the US should attempt to prevent Israel from taking such action.
I might not agree with Israel's decision and you might not agree with the U.S.'s - but that doesn't change the fact that both are in the end sovereign nations - democratically run - and fully entitled to, and capable of, making independent policy judgments on such a critical issue.
The questions that deserve a thorough airing regarding Iran are what the nature of the threat really is, what is the best strategy for responding, and how can Israel and the United States along with allies in the region and around the world achieve an outcome that maximizes all of our interests while minimizing the risks to those interests.
This isn't a simple yes/no question - and, again, too often traditional advocates for Israel try to oversimplify the questions before us to whether you're "with us or against us." To demand blanket support for an Israeli military strike against Iran should Israel's government decide to undertake one is to my mind an unproductive litmus test for whether one supports Israel with all or even part of one's heart and soul.
The right approach to building the broadest possible base of support for Israel (and to make the strongest case for it) is to step back from the combative my-way-or-the-highway approach that can characterize such discussions and to accept that there are legitimate disagreements on policy and strategy across a broad spectrum of political views in the community of Israel supporters. The more welcome we all feel in this community, the more open and robust the discussion and debate we allow - the stronger the U.S.-Israel relationship will be in the long run.
There has never been - and there certainly never will be - only one opinion and voice in the American Jewish community on these or any other issues. Voices carrying differing opinions may not have had the megaphone in the past that they do today, and the simpler media environment in prior generations may have made it easier to keep voices of dissent muzzled.
But the days when our community could act as if disagreements don't exist and could muscle those with competing views off the stage are long over. We live in an era now and a generation is rising to the forefront of our community that is wired for far freer debate and interchange on complex issues than any that has come before.
We don't need or await an invitation to join any other "mainstream" organization. We will define our positions for ourselves and when we agree or disagree, we'll be more than happy to engage in a robust, public and clearly feisty debate based on the merits of our views where we disagree or to sign joint statements with others when we agree.
I look forward to continuing the conversation in the future - perhaps at further in-person debates and discussions.
Follow Jeremy Ben-Ami on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jstreetdotorg
Sam Asher: Pro-Peace IS Pro-Israel
Dershowitz notes that many terrorist organizations hate Israel simply for its Jewish character. He is right, but the reality of the occupation is that it provides these terrorists a tool for recruitment and radicalization.
The way you handled yourself during this back and forth was inspiring. I just read on Harratz that a J-Street delegation is on the ground meeting the Israeli president and politicians from the full spectrum of Israeli politics (including even settler organizations who i'm sure disagree with you on the settlement issue). That is awesome.
What is not so "awesome" is that J-Street has it's boots on the ground looking for real solutions to the conflict and yet, here you are, left to defend these baseless attacks back home. I'm saddened that people like Mr. Dershowitz feel the need to tear down those he disagrees with. This is especially disheartening when you both obviously have great love for Israel. You simply have "policy differences" on the best ways to secure it's future as a democratic homeland for the Jewish people.
I think Mr. Dershowitz is scared. He honestly believes that his way is the only way and any other less hawkish path is dangerous to Israel. Some see the status-quo as the safe bet but the status quo is unsustainable and it's certainly not in the best interest of Israel.Many think like him, they believe they hold the absolute truth (the codebook so to speak) on what it means to be Pro-Israel. They will attack you, J-Street or anyone who has the "audacity" of proposing an active push toward a peaceful solution to the conflict.
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST >>>
So Jeremy , when and if you ever get that apology from Mr. Dershowitz. Please let him know he should CC it to each and every one of us who supports J-Street and it's PRO-ISRAEL, pro-peace objectives.
It's never considered anti-Semitic to criticize Israel. But when you single out Israel for criticism and use a double standard then you most definitely open yourself up to being labeled an anti-Semite. And rightfully so.
Oil.
And the fact that criticism of arab and/or muslim policies can be hazardous to your health.
People who criticize Israel really don't fear a truck bomb plowing into their offices, or having a knife stuck in their chest while walking on a street ( as was done to Theo Van Gogh, a critic of Islam's policies towards women).
Where is our (the Liberal's) outrage over this?! Why aren't we protesting this hate in our own yard? This is the outrage!
The civilized and reasoned, yet forceful way you answered to Dershowitz is one of the many reasons why a gentile like me contribute to J Street.
It's very refreshing to see someone resisting being pushed around by pundits and rabid fanatics.
Keep up the great work
Dershowitz expressed his opinion, Ben Ami expressed his. In my worldview, demanding an apology and in public is a bit over the top. I do not believe for one moment that this commentary was anything more than an additional attempt to publicly humiliate Dershowitz.
If your feelings are hurt, you take it up with the person that hurt you, not the entire world.
Ben Ami never respond twice, you just missed an article. The discussion has been a pure 1 to 1 discussion between the men. I was somewhat confused at first by your post and could not understand the point you were trying to make. You were saying Ben Ami was humiliating Dershowitz by "milking" "A second commentary". I think this is why the people kept arguing with you. They thought you kept attacking Ben Ami when really, you were just confused.
I don't blame you, following this back and forth would be somewhat confusing unless you were following it from the start.
Let me help , I will lay out the articles chronologically for you and anyone else who wants to read this from the start and in order.
Here are the article links :
Dershowitz - J Street Can No Longer Claim to Be Pro Israel : http://huff.to/bCHiNJ
Ben Ami - Alan Dershowitz Is Wrong : http://huff.to/cnIAP6
Dershowitz - A Direct Challenge to J Street From Alan Dershowitz : http://huff.to/cnpvjS
Ben Ami - A Direct Answer to Alan Dershowitz and a Challenge Back : http://huff.to/brH68X
Dershowitz - An Invitation To J Street From Alan Dershowitz : http://huff.to/cTQ70y
Ben Ami -A Final Letter to Alan Dershowitz (for Now) : http://huff.to/9gYHV7
As you can see JustMeinNY , this has been a pure one on one back and forth.
I marked chillypalmer as 'favourite'
The "fact" is that Israel proposes to be "the Jewish State" and to represent Jews everywhere.
This is the basis on which any criticism of Israel is taken to be anti-semitic.
Netanyahu as prime minister of Israel does claim to be a (if not THE) Jewish leader.
It behooves all Jews who do not identify with Netanyahu and Israel to make a loud announcement of their objections or to have their silence taken as consent.
.
What of it?
My blogroll is also quite extensive.
It's a global world sweet pea! Gotta go with the flow.
It's a scurrilous charge meant to discredit critics who are willing to stand up against a policy that includes unending settlement building, which will never bring Israel or the Palestinians peace, but in fact makes Israel's long-term security more precarious as the months and years pass.
But you've obviously touched a nerve with Mr. Dershowitz, as we all have in challenging the Israeli government's policies, which are also impacting our national security interests in the Middle East.
Yet no one will talk of the elephant in the room--how arab policies impact US security interests.
The arab policies of intolerance are the entire root cause of the conflict itself. ( and in fact the root cause of many conflicts )
All Israeli policy since the arab declared war reflects the original root cause which is never addressed.
To ignore the fact that the original arab declaration of war preceded ANY settlements is to be willfully blind.
Congratulations on keeping your civil tone as Alan attacks your morals. You truly do represent that which is best about Judaism.