Blogs and Stories
Battle for American Jews
Craig Ruttle / AP Photo
An upstart Washington advocacy group called J Street has mounted a leftist challenge to the hawkish establishment over who speaks for American Jews—but Matthew Yglesias says the old guard's response risks alienating Jews and hurting Israel.
J Street, the new “pro-Israel, pro-peace” political advocacy organization aimed at creating a powerful voice for progressive Zionists in the United States, is attracting hostility from much of the Jewish establishment in America. But that should come as no surprise: Its foundation last year, and its maturation in the form of its debut annual conference this week in Washington, are a direct threat to much of that establishment, including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the capital’s most influential lobbying groups. As the small but vocal minority of conservative Jews rarely tires of lamenting, the vast majority of Jewish Americans persist in holding left-wing political opinions. But on the question of Israel and the broader region in which it’s situated, Jewish political influence has been felt overwhelmingly on the hawkish side—skeptical of concessions to Palestinians, eager to believe that military force can stop terrorism, and more recently pushing for aggressive confrontation with Iran. J Street aims to change that and give voice to those of us who see Jewish identity and support for Israel as part of a progressive, internationalist, and generally dovish worldview. Naturally, the guardians of the status quo are pushing back.
The status quo forces in the Jewish community have sought to define the “pro-Israel” brand as not just support for the Zionist idea, but as support for a particular kind of conservative, militaristic, and nationalist conception of how that idea should be implemented.
What’s more surprising is that instead of arguing their positions on the merits, J Street’s detractors have opted to question the sincerity of its pro-Israel posture. In a typical offering, Gabriel Schoenfeld of the conservative Hudson Institute and the Witherspoon Institute wrote in the New York Post that J Street “has been engaged in a bit of pretense” on this point. Commentary, a conservative Jewish magazine, and The Weekly Standard, edited by the extremely hawkish Bill Kristol, have been unrelenting in their criticism. The latter outlet’s Michael Goldfarb has been the standard-bearer of a campaign to pressure members of Congress not to participate. The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg conducted in interview with J Street’s founder, Jeremy Ben-Ami, in which he repeatedly probed Ben-Ami’s Zionist bona fides and fretted that even if he was sincere “there are others who are glomming on to you guys as a cover, just using you to advance another agenda entirely.”
Perhaps the reductio ad absurdum of this came when Larry Ben-David, a former staffer for AIPAC, by far the largest and most politically powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington, “proved” that J Street can’t really be pro-Israel since its PAC received a contribution from Rebecca Abou-Chedid, a Lebanese-American who’s worked with liberal Jews on the Arab-Israeli conflict for years at the New America Foundation and the Arab American Institute.
The claim, in other words, is not just some cutesy pretense that J Street can’t “really” be pro-Israel since its policy agenda is bad. The argument is that the organization is some kind of elaborate fraud aiming at Israel’s destruction. Even Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, has gotten into the act, not just declining an invitation to appear at the J Street conference but publicly dissing the group.
As a narrow political strategy aimed at advancing the interests of the American Jewish right, this makes a great deal of sense. Most people mostly don’t pay much attention to the details of public policy disputes, and that includes Jews and disputes about Israel. Instead, they rely on signals and heuristics. And most American Jews know that they—that we—are pro-Israel. Control of the brand is thus a vital prop of support for people pushing a foreign policy agenda that’s more Bush than Obama. But for Israel itself this is a dangerous game that risks alienating a large swath—perhaps even a majority—of American Jews.
Israel has enough problems that discerning who’s for it and who’s against it shouldn’t be that difficult. The Zionist idea is that there should be a Jewish state in the historical Land of Israel. It’s a controversial proposition. I hear from readers of my blog who want to see Israel and Palestine amalgamated into some kind of unworkable binational mush. I’ve spoken to Arab politicians who dream of an expansive polity encompassing the entire Middle Eastern ummah in which Jews (and, for that matter, the Christians of Palestine and Lebanon) would be tolerated minorities. There are those who say they favor two states, but insist on such a massive inflow of Palestinian refugees to Israel that its Jewish character would be essentially eradicated. And I assume there are millions, if not billions, of people around the world who’ve never thought about these questions and don’t care one way or the other.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Step Up to the Plate, China
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
Next Battle for Health Care
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
Defending a Bomb-Thrower
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
i don't care who speaks for the jews the fact of the matter is as far as i am concerned they spend to much time talking about the holocost and analogizing it to something we should enbrace in this country well it did not happen here and we have enough things that happened in this country we do not need every one that want to come here wanting us to fight their age old battles so i think anyone who is an american can speak for america but if you cme from anothe country leave your baggage there and if you want to protest something that happened there leave it there
Nikkya - I don't want to comment on the substance of what you said. I'm not in the mood to try to discuss the jingoistic tendencies of your narrow world-view this morning. What I would like to ask, however, is when did it became at all reasonable to just completely ignore punctuation, spelling and capitalization? I just don't understand. It not only detracts from your substantive point (giving you the appearance of an uneducated fool), but it is also incredibly difficult to read and really annoying. Even if you choose to continue spouting the nonsense you've stated above, please do so in a manner that respects the English language.
there was some errors but none the less the substance is the same and if that is not correct enough english for you then i still say the same thing because i am home and i am willing to answer fro what happens in this country but not all over the world "what you say about that"
I say that I have no idea what you're trying to say. Because, again, you refuse to use those little things that make language...understandable.
Reckless, you are indeed reckless in your nonsensical reply to Nikkya, by pointing out his spelling and punctuation, you made him look good and you like a tightass analretentive prick. Of course there is no excuse for Nikkya's narrow mindedness and total lack of respect and consideration for any real human emotion, which in turn ,is the cause of the fall of America as the leader of the free world.
well said!!! thumbs up.
yeah, i'd much prefer christian conservatives bring up the nazis in relation to every single obama policy proposed since his inauguration.
Great response!
nikkya, why are you pretending to have read this article? If you did you would have noticed it did not mention the holocaust, so what's your stink? If you aren't interested in american jewry who made you read this article? You comment is gratuitious, bellyaching about your anti-semetic crap.
the article might not have mentioned it but when ever certain people are are these shows they spend to much time on that subject believe me i do not rejoice in anyone's miseries but i think we need to spend a little more time on how we can make and keep the peace in this country instead we talk all the time about what is going on in other countries and why everyone should have guns in this country i think it is disgusting there is to much killing and talking of killing we need to investigate how we can live in peace in this country in stead of so much hatred and racism here let's clean this up before we keep investigating other countries
I might suggest Matthew Yglesias read the transcript of liberal Alan Dershowitz who spoke a year ago at Standford University. Dershowitz never runs out of criticism of Israel yet his complaint is not on criticism itself but the baseless lack of facts the majority of those who speak out against Israel posses.
I might also suggest DB ask Professor Dershowitz to write an essay for them on organizations such as J Street. After all, is it not the intention to gain truth in knowledge?? I would hate to think ones intention to just spew ones own opinion complete with distortions and nothing to back it up is what the general populace is after.
J Streets agenda is less than genuine. Sadly, by relying on their assumption they are an advocacy group is less than genuine to say the least.
Ambassador Oren has every reason to not attend the J Street convention. BTW: If it is ok for President Obama to disassociate himself with Fox News why should it be news Ambassador Oren prefers to dissociate himself with JStreet?
In conclusion, I support Dershowitz one hundred percent when he says not only is it right to criticize but a moral duty to do so. It is his caveats however to the disproportionate amount of unjustified uneducated criticism which wraps truth that should give us all pause for thinking.
What! Alan Dershowitz, the proponent of legalizing torture, calls himself a liberal?!!!
This article is typical post-modern pose. It offers no specifics as to what Israelis should do in regards to the threats posed by Hamas, Hezbollah or Ahmedinijad.
It is mostly self-congratulation for not being an "older (!) hawkish, - by the author's terms - "conservative" Zionist.
It pushes buttons, but offers no solutions.
dailyraphirmations.com
Furthermore, the writer of this article filled with catch phrases such as 'conservative' and 'hawkish' failed to give the name of even one liberal standing against J Street such as the ultra liberal Rabbi Eric Yoffie head of the US Reform Judaism movement described J Street's views as "deeply distressing, morally deficient and profoundly out of touch with Jewish sentiment and appallingly naïve".
Mr.Yglesias article fell short on many levels for he is consumed with the false premise, conservative means one thing and liberal means quite another when in fact AIPAC is made up of both leftist and rightest Jews. Furthermore, the catch phrase calling AIPAC "one of the capital's most influential lobbying groups" (when compared to others is not) ALWAYS elicits the time worn cabal, Jews run the world, not to mention the White House.
nice try.
i seriously doubt yoffie is THAT distressed if he agreed to be a keynote speaker at J Street's conference this week.
http://www.jstreet.org/page/j-street-conference-2009-driving-change-secu ring-peace
the comment you cherrypicked is a single comment of disapproval about a single statement j street released about the gaza incursion. yoffie is QUITE behind j street, overall.
as an american jew, i'm neither "for" aipac or j street, but i do think j street should exist if in fact a significant number of american jews do not feel their views are well represented by aipac, which according to polls seems to be the case.
Matthew Yglesias - "And I assume there are millions, if not billions, of people around the world who've never thought about these questions and don't care one way or the other."
I think you're right about that, Matthew, and I think it's in the low billions. As for the rest of it, I don't know. Good luck.
Liberals here and in Europe hate Jews, love Muslims. How Jews can continue to association with the Left is the big head shaker of the last twenty years. Just because their Grandparents did I guess.
Those who just "hate Jews" are not liberal they are antisemites. There are conervative antisemites on the right as well in case you haven't noticed. Not agreeing with Israeli policies is not the same thing. However, so many anti-semites jump in and start bad mouthing Jews everywhere when there are comments open on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, that it is easy to get confused about whos who.
How odd, here I am in Europe surrounded by people who seem to do a good job of concealing their hatred of the Jews. Meanwhile, anti-Muslim violence is becoming a rising problem. A head shaker indeed.
Like many American Jews, I'm also a Jew and a liberal. I can't forget that the persecution of the Jews was perpetrated by extreme rightwingers..... so what if extreme rightwingers these days call themselves pro-Israel? The ideology is the same.
What'll it be like in 20 years? It was an interesting bit of information last year that if the demographics of 1980 were the same as the demographics of 2008, Reagan would have won by low single digits instead of the 10% that obtained back then. Our demographics will continue to change and include higher percentages of people of ancestry other than white European. Same with the world as a whole and even within Israel where Muslims will become a majority some time this century. Yes, a Jewish state is controversial and will become more so.
I fail to see anything disconcerting about a Progressive/Liberal/Conservative group of people (regardless of religion) who wish to form a PAC that more closely reflects their values and concerns in relationship to Israel
If there exist a belief within the Jewish community, that the existing PAC is not representing that community then does not that reflect a breakdown in that PAC's ability to legitimately incorporate all views. And does not that in turn signal a refutiation of orthodox approaches to the safety and security of Israel.
I say let the J street folks have their PAC, the more Jewish voices brought into the discourse the better for the US and Israel.
slmpirate - Agreed.
The "J" street group are a bunch of puerile self-aggrandizing ignoramuses with no sense of history. Their ideas are out of main-stream American thinking and are certainly anti-Israel, possibly anti-semitic. Before deciding to write this article, Mr. Yglesias might have studied a little more mid-east history.
On what basis are you calling the J Street group's views anti-Semitic? Is it just because you don't agree with them? Are you calling the whole of the Israeli left of center opposition anti-Semitic? Are you perhaps even calling Herzl anti-Semitic? (you remember he was a socialist and he was opposed to racism in all its forms, right? Or do they no longer teach Jewish history in Israel?)
The idea that 'J Street' is anti Israal is completely ridiculous, on the same wavelength as 'if you criticize Israel in any way, you are anti-semitic'. And by the way, America just fought a war for Israel in Iraq, pity that Jewish people are dramatically underrepresented in the Armed forces and even more a pity that the American whit-trash public is too stupid to know what they are dying for. (And energy of course)
Thanks Jomama for a great example of antisemitism.
The efforts of J Street to increase debate on zero is not the same.
Who wrote that description of this article at the top of the page? It thoroughly misrepresents Yglesias' point of view! (Aside from using the word "aliening" -- huh?)
Matthew,
Supporting Israel is completely consistent with progressive politics, and there's nothing even remotely conservative about Zionism. Please tell me how supporting the only truly free and democratic society in the Middle East is inconsistent with progressive politics. Tell me how supporting the only nation in the Middle East which respects of the rights of gays and women is inconsistent with progressive politics. Tell me how supporting the right of Israel to defend itself from reactionary movements like Hamas and Hezbollah (who openly call for my country's destruction) is even remotely inconsistent with progressive politics.
The problem, Mathew, is you seem to practice a progressive politics that has been horribly distorted by the moral relativism that you no doubt learned in college - which, somehow, prevents you from getting properly outraged when anti-Semitic thought (so intense that it would have made the editors of Der Sturmer blush) is so widely believed in the Middle East that it has become downright banal.
Israel is too nationalistic? Its too ''conservative''? Please!
As I speak, 10 minutes from where I live, only the other day, radical Imams - as well as Hamas and The Islamic Movement - were trying to incite Palestinians to ''defend'' Al Aqsa from the Jews...trying their best to provoke another bloody intifada where my friends, family members, and colleagues would be fair game for attack.
Where's your progressive outrage over that, Mathew?
« OPEN LETTER TO THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT | COLINDALE 's Blog | London NETANYAHU has almost certainly cost Obama and the Democratic Party, a second term in office. »
Now is the time for Europe to divorce itself from the AIPAC-controlled, American foreign policy on Israel
November 1, 2009, 11:01PM
Now is the time for Europe to divorce itself from the AIPAC-controlled, American foreign policy on Israel that accepts gross human rights violations i.e. the killing of 900 civilians in Gaza, in January last, which included the deliberate killing of 320 children and the illegal use of white phosphorus as a chemical weapon.
The official United Nations Report of the Fact Finding Mission. April/May 2009 by independent South African jurist, Judge Goldstone, concluded that there were:
1. Deliberate attacks by the Israeli army on civilians
2. 1400 Gazans were killed in three weeks
3. There was illegal use of white phosphorus
4. Israel violated the right to free movement
5. Dehumanization was carried out
6. There was illegal torture and punishment
7. There were violations of international human rights and humanitarian law
8. There was arbitrary deprivation of life
Obviously the United States will act as it, or the American Israel lobby group, sees fit - but Europe will hopefully conform to the principles of democracy, international law, the Geneva Conventions on Human Rights and basic morality.
The armies of western democratic nations would never be ordered to target civilians, unarmed women and innocent children. It is incumbent, therefore, for Europe to show its condemnation of such acts of barbarity.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.