Debating J Street and the Jewish vote at the Hudson Institute
In the mind of Gabriel Schoenfeld, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute and a former senior editor at Commentary, J Street is in bed with John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, the authors of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy."
Schoenfeld noted that Walt had endorsed J Street a few weeks ago and said J Street “shares central elements of the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis." He compared Mearsheimer and Walt to famed World War II-era anti-Semite Charles Lindbergh, saying both Lindbergh and Walt & Mearsheimer spoke out about Jewish influence and control of the government at times when the world was "awash in genocidal anti-Semitism." (A text of that portion of Schoenfeld's speech -- which he e-mailed -- is below, after the jump.)
For a Jewish organization to “make common cause with anti-Semitic voices in order to tear down others and establish its place,” Schoenfeld said, is “nothing less than shameful.” (Schoenfeld also noted that J Street has a link to a Walt article from Foreign Policy magazine on its Web site. J Street later said the link is among dozens of articles in a section of the Web site devoted to pieces that mention J Street and is not meant to be an endorsement of the article.)
The remarks came as part of the institute's daylong seminar Thursday called “U.S.-Israeli Relations at a Crossroads?” at a panel titled “The Battle to Define the 'Pro-Israel Camp:' Will the Current Crisis Split the American Jewish Community?”
Jeremy Ben-Ami, the executive director of J Street -- the new, self-described "pro-Israel, pro-peace" lobbying organization -- was supposed to be on hand, but he was ill and had to cancel.
Instead, J Street issued a statement after the panel responding to Schoenfeld's remarks.
“The only thing shameful here is an offensive and scurrilous attempt to turn blatant lies into stated facts,” J Street spokeswoman Amy Spitalnick said. “J Street will continue to engage in serious, respectful discussions with right-wing thinkers and leaders. It’s truly a shame that, in this case, some chose fear-mongering and name-calling over constructive debate.”
The rest of the panel was devoted to a more understated discussion of issues such as whether an organization like J Street could find a strong constituency among American Jews, and, more broadly, whether the Obama administration would lose Jewish support for publicly criticizing Israel.
Peter Beinart, a journalism professor at CUNY and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation (and the former editor of The New Republic), said that “pro-Israel organizations that equate no criticism of Israel with being pro-Israel” are in trouble because the “backbone” of those organizations -- “relatively secular Jews with moderate or liberal politics” whose feelings about Israel trump other concerns -- “are not replicating themselves in the younger generation.”
Jewish politics is becoming much more like Christian politics, Beinart said, with the most religiously Orthodox becoming more conservative and the more secular moving left.
“I think that is going to make it harder” to maintain a “Jewish consensus which holds the Jewish political center,” he said.
But he didn't think that necessarily would translate into success for J Street, because many of those secular Jews aren't involved in the organized community, Beinart said. There's a large base that can support J Street, he said, but the question is: "Do they care enough?”
As for whether Obama would lose the support of Jews for getting tough on Israel, conservatives on the panel said they didn't think so.
Jay Lefkowitz, a lawyer and former Bush administration official, analyzed Jewish voting patterns and noted that many Jews feel so passionately about social issues that they trump other concerns, even Israel. “Unless Obama comes out and adopts a pro-life position, he's not likely to lose support” among Jews, Lefkowitz said.
He did say that based on recent polling data, he could see Obama losing Jewish support only with a “very dovish position with respect to Iran,” or if he decided to “keep the hammer” on Israel over settlements. He said, though, that the Obama administration likely realizes that while Jews are solidly Democratic, the Arab-American community is “genuinely a swing vote,” and thus he can adopt “harsher” policies toward Israel and win the vote of both communities.
A former Jewish liaision in the Bush administration, Tevi Troy, didn't disagree. Troy, now a senior fellow at Hudson, chronicled the outreach that the Bush White House had made to the Jewish community, but noted that Obama still won close to 80 percent of the Jewish vote with “very little record” on Israel.
He said the Obama administration believes “they really don't have to worry about the Jewish vote,” and “some of their actions reflect that,” such as the choice to nominate former U.N. Human Rights Council chairwoman Mary Robinson for the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Here's more from Schoenfeld's speech:
I want to return to us, for a moment, to September 11. Not the September 11, 2001 of New York City and Washington, but the September 11, 1941 of Des Moines, Iowa. It was there, on that date, that Charles Lindbergh, the American aviator-hero and a prominent figure in the America First movement, gave a speech in which he denounced the forces propelling the United States into war in Europe.
At a moment when the world was awash in genocidal anti-Semitism, Lindbergh singled out what he called “the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.” Speaking of the “Jewish,” he said that “the greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government.”
Three months after Lindbergh’s speech, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and Lindbergh’s anti-Semitic ideas and the broader America First movement were utterly discredited and the organization itself dissolved.
But, of course, the virus Lindbergh carried did not entirely disappear. It has had several vectors over the post-war era, mostly on the far fringes, despite various and quite self-conscious attempts by figures like Congressman Paul Findley and pundit Patrick Buchanan to inject it into the mainstream.
What’s significant about our own era—the post-September 11, 2001 era—is that at a moment when the world is again awash with genocidal anti-Semitism, the virus has returned here. This time around, however, the contagion has penetrated the center of American intellectual life, the universities, and spread from there outward. I am speaking, of course, of the work of John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard.
Share
Facebook
11 Comments
Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments
As another Jew, deeply involved in communal life, and Israel activities over 5 decades, with a son in Israel, and who has visited countless times, as well as having lived there as a child, let me say that I strongly disagree with The Wise bard. Not with his right to disagree with AIPAC, or the policies of the government of Israel; or with his right to voice those disagreements - DIRECTLY TO THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT, ITS REPRESENTATIVES, OR AMONGST OURSELVES IN OUR COMMUNITY GATHERINGS. It is not for any Jew, living outside Israel, to publically dissent, or actively work to push the powers that be, here in America or elsewhere, to enact policies that would force Israel to back down in areas related to israel’s security. It is for the democratic process in Israel, flawed as it is, to make the decisions for which Israelis will pay the price. If those sitting securely in their living rooms in America, prove to be wrong, it is not they, or their children, that will pay the ultimate price. If one feels strongly enough, move to israel, promote your views, and vote them into action, over there.
It is appropriate that at the end of October, right before Halloween, a large gathering of anti-Israel organizations dressed up in costumes labeled “pro-Israel” and “pro-peace” will convene in Washington. The disguises are new and from a distance they look so good that a shockingly large contingent of our national representatives have been fooled—and then lent their names to endorse the central public component of this deception, otherwise known as “J Street’s First Annual Gala Dinner.”
http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com/2009/10/j-street-is-selling-snake-oil.html#links
The Whiney Barf,
You leftwingnut, secular-progressive, pseudo academic libtards love to fall back on your mantra of persecution via name-calling. Far, far worse than name-calling (is it still name-
calling if the name is 100% spot on?), is the cowardly, traitorous campaign by the overeducated idiots to ingratiate the Jewish sheeple with the corrupt, disingenuous, genocidal Arabs, while selling out Israel acre by acre to the Pali pukes.
Remember, Barf, it’s not name-calling if it’s a perfect fit!
I thank William Bilek for expressing his disagreements in civil fashion conducive to intelligent debate on important substantive matters.
The position he advocates is a serious one, one that I once found persuasive. Indeed, I seriously explored aliya at an earlier stage in my life, and a number of my close friends with similar perspectives made a go of it. Virtually all became incredibly frustrated with the Israeli political system, whose dysfunctionality (both in terms of internal party dynamics and the excessive role of small parties necessary for the composition of coalition majorities) has become increasingly apparent over the years. Some have stayed on to fight for their positions, others have, over the years, returned to their countries of origin. A part of me retains a sadness that aliyah did not work out for me or for my family, although all of us retain close ties to Israel and our many Israeli friends. But that does not constitute a full or adequate response to Mr. Bilek’s position.
What has also become apparent over the years is that Mr. Bilek’s proposition is routinely trotted out by AIPAC and Commentary folk in times of right-wing Israeli governments, and routinely ignored by these same individuals during periods of more dovish Israeli governments. I have no idea whether this is true of Mr. Bilek himself, but it certainly is of Mr. Schoenfeld, Mr. Podhoretz, and many others, who have vigorously and publicly critiqued Israeli policies with which they disagree, and sometimes sought to subvert those policies. Not to speak of those who responded to peace efforts by elected Israeli leaders by demonizing those leaders, and indeed by assassinating an elected Israeli prime minister in the midst of his quest for peace.
I am absolutely unwilling to concede the proposition that those holding hawkish views care more about Israeli security, or are more devoted to Israel’s future, than those who believe the continuation of existing demographic and geopolitical trends do not accrue to the benefit of a secure, democratic, and Jewishly resonant Israel. In the end, I am convinced that all those Jews and others devoted to Israel do best to speak their minds, openly and candidly (and with love and occasional pain), on how best to secure Israel’s future. The conversation is not improved by those who castigate individuals or groups through the use of ad hominem attacks and McCarthyite tactics, such as those apparently employed by Messrs. Schoenfeld and Podhoretz (not to speak of some of this site’s usual rabble rousers).
There is, of course, a set of additional considerations for those friends of Israel who are also American citizens, and are also rightly concerned with what is best for the United States, both domestically and in international affairs. In my own view, there is very substantial correspondence, but not necessarily identity, in those policies that are best for Israel and for America. For the present, while I have few illusions about problems emanating from the Palestinian and broader Arab players, I still believe that an active American role in promoting a negotiated two state solution is in the best interests of both Israel and America, and that American pressure on both Israeli and Arab governing authorities may serve a necessary role in moving both sides to make concessions that are politically difficult or impossible for the parties to achieve on their own, without the visible presence of external pressure. The policies of the recent Bush Administration, so often celebrated by right wing commentators such as Mr. Schoenfeld as “pro-Israel”, did little or nothing to advance the peace process, or to respond to threatening demographic or political trends. It is past time for a change in approach.
--The Wise Bard
Prof. Weisbard: My proposition of witholding PUBLIC comment on the security positions taken by the Government of Israel are consistent. I did not agree with P.M. Rabin when, after being elected on a platform of not recognizing the PLO before they recognized Israel, he made an about-face with Oslo. I wrote him about my discomfort, and indeed had a meeting with Minister Yossi Beilin at the time. Similarly, I did not agree with some policies of Arik Sharon. I communicated directly with the appropriate people in the Consulate of Israel. I believe these fora are useful as well (minus the name-calling and vitriol) for an exchange of ideas.
What I believe most strongly, however, is that the decisions on life and death matters be made by those who will pay the ultimate price. The political system in Israel is flawed. When it is flawed enough, the Israelis will have to fix it. In the meantime, with democracy comes responsibility. If Oslo was a mistake, the Israeli government made it. While America, and Americans must work to make the best decisions for America, when it comes to Israel, it is a very special case. First of all, those who wish Israel, and the Jews, ill, relish the opportunities to trot out Jewish detractors of Israel to butress their poisonous positions. Secondly, if groups such as J-Street, with the best of intentions, put political pressure on Washington to enact policies contrary to what Israelis themselves feel is necessary for their security, and they prove to be wrong, what will they say, from the comfort of their living rooms in Silver Springs, to those Israelis who will lose their children or their own lives? “Oops! Sorry!”? And in the most cataclysmic catastrophe conceiveable, if Israel were exterminated, (think an Iranian nuclear attack), “Gosh darn...I never thought they would do that. Mea Culpa.”
No! We as Jews in America, and the rest of the Western Democracies bear a very special responsibility to our people, and to our singular state on earth; not to agree with it, right or wrong; not to turn a blind eye to the shortcomings of the government or even the people of Israel; but to “have their backs”, right or wrong, and push for whatever we believe personally, from within. We, the Jewish people, and Israel, the Jewish state, have enough enemies who intend us no good. If, God-forbid, they were ever to succeed, those of us who helped them will have earned no “Brownie-points” in the eyes of our enemies.
The Whiney Barf,
Could you give us just a tiny break from your pseudo-academic drivel? We’re begging you...just a tiny break! You have absolutely no idea what it means to stand up and fight for Israel and /or the Jewish People. That’s right, stand up and FIGHT with fists or weapons, if necessary. You’re a sissified JINO sellout who could never FIGHT to protect even your own family. It must be horrible to be such a coward. Give us a break!
Do others find “blackie’s” comments on this or other threads a positive contribution to intelligent discourse?
For what it is worth, my late father fought the Nazis at the Battle of the Bulge, winning a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and Purple Heart(s). He is buried at Arlington National Cemetery. I do not live up to his achievements on the battlefield, but at least someone in my family fought and sacrificed for his ideals, and for his country.
How about you, blackie? Any evidence of making the world a better place, other than through insulting others without any basis in fact while hiding behind a pseudonym? Talk about a horrible existence…
Cheryl, I posted a response to the substance of your comments elsewhere, where I first saw them. Thanks for a very thoughtful and well considered post (except, perhaps, for your first paragraph above, which was not included in your other posting).
Mr. Bilek, thanks also to you for a thoughtful response. Please note that i was very careful NOT to accuse you personally of any inconsistencies; my comments were directed specifically at Mr Schoenfeld’s behavior, and that of his intellectual compatriots who did, in my view, behave both inconsistently and, frankly, in bad faith, during periods of more dovish Israeli governments.
On the substance of your remarks, I would only note that several of your propositions go both ways. That is, if American Jews who favor more dovish (I prefer “owl-like"--that is, far-seeing and wise--but that phrase in not in common use) positions keep quiet with their concerns, and the result is a tragedy for Israel’s long term interests, status as a vibrant Jewish community, democratic status, and long term well being (which depends in no little part on its relationships with America and the democratic world and their economic, political and military support)--then an “oops, sorry” would hardly be of much solace, whether coming from those with my opinions or from those with your opinions. South Africa did not last as an apartheid state (in my view, properly so) once it lost its political legitimacy and the support of the West. The same could happen to Israel if it persists as an expansionist, occupying force in the face of worldwide political opposition and inexorable demographic changes. I do not want that to happen.
Iran is a very complicated question, and I do not necessarily agree with positions taken by some of the organizations we are discussing. I’m not sure anyone (including me) has figured out a good set of options there. I would note that the situation there worsened considerably under Bush’s watch, and that poorly calculated decisions on Iraq and Afghanistan have diminished the willingness of much of the American public to consider military steps (by the US or by Israel) against the despicable current government of Iran. I am withholding judgment on how President Obama’s diplomatic initiatives (including complex maneuvers with Russia) regarding iran will work out; I hope a combination of carrots and effective sticks can result in ending the nuclear threat, but that is far from a foregone conclusion at this point.
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, you must first be logged in to JTA. If you are not registered, please click here.
Already a JTA member?
Need to know? Get JTA's free e-newsletters!
Alan Jay Weisbard
10/09/09 05:10 PM
Here is one Jew deeply involved in Jewish communal life and Israeli activities for some four decades (including multiple visits to and longer stays in Israel), who has spoken out against the unbalanced and overstated views of Walt and Mearsheimer, who feels considerably closer to the ideals advocated by the pro-Israel, pro-peace community than to the ostrich-like, hidebound, and hard right conservatism of AIPAC and the Commentary crowd. As a University professor of, among other things, Jewish law and ethics and as one who also works with Jewish students through Hillel, I can testify that the Israel “right or wrong” attitudes promulgated by such folk do not appeal to a high proportion of independent minded, critically aware Jewish students at my midwestern campus, let alone to non-Jewish students. There is a powerful case to be made for a secure and flourishing Jewish State of Israel, but ad hominem attacks and distractions like Schoenfeld’s contribute nothing toward it, and turn off potentially receptive students and other thinking Americans.
Once upon a time, neoconservatives claimed to be the party of ideas. They have become the party of name-calling, and are well along to forfeiting any reasonable claim to be heard or paid attention to.
The Wise Bard