A spate of recent articles has wondered whether Cory Booker is "too Jewish" and too conservative in his views on the U.S.-Israel relationship. They analyze and speculate on his friendships with two Orthodox rabbis. In doing so, they reflect all that is wrong with American politics and Jewish life.
Yesterday, Jeffrey Goldberg, a journalist I know and respect, repeated Peter Beinart's attack against me from a few weeks ago, that in bringing Mayor Cory Booker to the Jewish community I made him too pro-Israel.
Peter Beinart and I know each other from Oxford University where he was a Rhodes scholar and I was Rabbi to the students, founder of the Oxford L'Chaim Society, and personal emissary of the Lubavitcher Rebbe.
While Jo has forgiven Patrick Magee, she readily conceded that forgiveness is not a prerequisite for empathy. What is more important, she says, is being interested in listening to the other perspective and trying to understand it, even if you are not willing to agree with it.
Contrary to Peter Beinart's thesis in The Crisis of Zionism, American Jews need not -- and most have not -- checked their liberalism at the door in order to maintain unwavering support for the Jewish State.
I have argued against the one state solution time and again; both in the version of the greater Land of Israel propagated by Israel's right, and in the version advocated by many Palestinian intellectuals and activists and some Jewish intellectuals on the far left.
Beinart is not arguing that the Palestinians are always right. Instead, he proves that Israel isn't either -- and that almost all the information put out by the lobby and the Israeli government is propaganda.
I have two rules about people's positive actions. The first is that they are always more important than their intentions, whatever they may be. The second is the rule articulated by Maimonides nearly 800 years ago: embrace truth regardless of its source.
It is no small travesty that the Daily Beast has done a remarkably shoddy job at delivering an even remotely accurate or fair representation of Zionist or Jewish discourse in this country and certainly in Israel.
The difference between Netanyahu and most Israelis, I believe, is that for them the situation today is nothing like the situation in the 1940s. Israel is not the Warsaw Ghetto, a comparison that insults both the memory of the Holocaust and Israel itself.
The implications of this conundrum -- desire for a Jewish state and a demographic challenge to that concept -- are evident and unpalatable: either the Palestinian residents would be denied equal rights or there would be a process of finding a way to get Palestinians to leave the state.
It is clear that your objection to Wiesenfeld's comments were his perceived misrepresentations of your political positions. Upon scrutiny, I discovered that your statements are riddled with contradictions.
David Remnick, editor of the New Yorker, is arguably the most influential Jewish American journalist. Over the years, he has written about Israel with some regularity -- but it's all changing for two reasons.