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.

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…

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 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