Showdown at AIPAC!
Hey Professor, didn’t anyone ever tell you in school to raise your hand before speaking?
Hadar Susskind, J Street’s policy director, was being interviewed at the gathering by a Haaretz reporter when, according to the reporter, none other than Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz “broke in to the conversation with a verbal onslaught against the group.”
Thus reports Tablet Magazine on the latest update in Dershowitz’s thrilling fight against the evil, anti-Israel J Street.
Arguing that J Street “shouldn’t call themselves pro-Israel,” he accused them of prioritizing certain policy positions over others to cast Israel in a negative light. Noting that he, like J Street, opposes settlements, he nonetheless maintained, “But I spend 80 percent of my time supporting Israel.”
In response, Susskind told the reporter: “We have disagreements with AIPAC that I don’t want to minimize. But we are all on the same side.”
Dershowitz’s reputation is way more fearsome than his performance here, captured partly on video: http://www.judaismwithoutborders.org/2010/03/22/from-the-aipac-conference-alan-dershowitz-vs-hadar-susskind/
Being reasonable doesn’t mean being right.
Acting reasonably doesn’t mean you’re not lying.
KFJ writes: No one organization speaks for the whole of the community, and if Dershowitz believes it then I am disappointed he isn’t attacking Mort Klein and the ZOA, who attack the mainstream for not supporting the settlers enough.
Correct. Dershowitz should criticize Mort Klein, but that doesn’t vindicate Ben-Ami’s approach.
J1, what’s “Ben-Ami’s approach”?
I can certainly respect anti-Zionist views, renaissanceboy, and the Jewish community can’t (shouldn’t) have a monolithic view about Israel.
But, I can’t respect the actions of American Zionists working to save Israelis from themselves (Israeli elections be damned.)
That’s not to say that Dershowitz wasn’t acting rudely in that video, or making strange comments (“Brzezinski is ‘anti-Israel?'”)
And, I can certainly see where people like Noam Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein (KFJ too?) are coming from.
I’ll never exactly get why Mort Klein or Jeremy Ben-Ami don’t feel a bit hypocritical, though. For that matter, the entire Israel lobby world (including AIPAC) seems a bit creepy (at least to me.)
>>“or making strange comments (”Brzezinski is ‘anti-Israel?’”)”
Zbigniew Brzezinski is indeed anti-Israel.
Zbigniew Brzezinski is indeed anti-Israel.
I second that. Mr. “we should shoot down Israeli planes going to bomb Iranian nukes”. Talk about “strange comments”.
Dershowitz is playing by his gut. I know that AIPAC doesn’t want a fight with JStreet. They consider it an immature upstart, but not a challenge, and possibly a future ally. Those of us who support AIPAC need to bring JStreet in from the cold, to work on areas of agreement and take advantage of them filling the gaping holes in AIPAC’s Israel advocacy.
Anonymouse, whether or not Dershowitz is playing by his gut (which I tend to think of as a problem, not an excuse), and even given that AIPAC doesn’t want a fight with J Street (I don’t think they do), it’s silly to claim that J Street needs to “bring J Street in from the cold.” J Street is doing just fine on its own. In that video, it’s clear that the J Street staffers were the ones working on areas of agreement and Dershowitz was the one trying to keep them out of the “pro-Israel” camp.
J Street is not, and doesn’t need to be, defined in terms of where it agrees and disagrees with AIPAC.
I second that. Mr. “we should shoot down Israeli planes going to bomb Iranian nukes”. Talk about “strange comments”.
Not to play Brzezinski’s defender, but this statement does not make Brzezinski anti-Israel, particularly within the context of a hypothetical brinkmanship-like scenario. Anti-Israel means that someone is against the existence of Israel as a country, which Brzezinski clearly is not.
Please stop using the word “anti-Israel” to describe those you disagree with and please use it to describe those out to deliberately dismantle Israel.
And, I can certainly see where people like Noam Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein (KFJ too?) are coming from.
Why am I categorized with these people? I’m nothing like them.
Dershowitz should criticize Mort Klein, but that doesn’t vindicate Ben-Ami’s approach.
I’m not beholden to anyone for speaking my mind. If I differ in opinions with any organization, then I am free to speak my own peice and organize others who agree with me. With others in J Street, we have raised $4 million, hired 40 staff, and put $600,000 into campaign contributions that differ with the establishment. J Street has clearly answered a power vacuum and market need in the Jewish community for balance.
Why would I let Dershowitz tell me what to do? I’m tired of the status quo, and not a single Jewish org in the established Jewish community has tried to hasten negotiations. In fact, I’ve come to believe they oppose negotiations. I’m tired of ideologues running my community — I want realists. They can get out of our way, or they can join us.
I oppose the thought police and the sheep who submit to them.
Why am I categorized with these people?
Because I thought you are opposed to Zionism? I’d apologize for mis-categorizing you, but I don’t think there is anything wrong with anti-Zionism.
With others in J Street, we have raised $4 million, hired 40 staff, and put $600,000 into campaign contributions that differ with the establishment.
The “establishment” means the freely elected Israeli government, correct? But what the hell do Israelis care about their future, in comparison to America’s pro-Israel activists?
I’m tired of ideologues running my community — I want realists. They can get out of our way, or they can join us.
I oppose the thought police and the sheep who submit to them
Is this directed at me? If so, this is what I wrote above:
I’ll never exactly get why Mort Klein or Jeremy Ben-Ami don’t feel a bit hypocritical, though. For that matter, the entire Israel lobby world (including AIPAC) seems a bit creepy (at least to me.)
In any case, I do disagree with KFJ, which makes me a mindless sheep because, after all, nobody with a functioning brain could actually disagree with KFJ or his causes–we’re all just sheep.
Jonathan1, you’re so bitter 🙂
Please stop using the word “anti-Israel” to describe those you disagree with and please use it to describe those out to deliberately dismantle Israel.
KFJ, does that mean we should reserve “anti-American” only for those who wish to “deliberately dismantle” America? Or does the “anti-” refer to those who stand against the general common interests of the elected government?
If a former Israeli minister was out there fantasizing about bringing down American planes, would that be “anti-American”? By your definition, al Qaeda is not “anti-American”, since all they want is American withdrawal from the Middle East, not America’s complete destruction.
Al Qaeda has a beef with US foreign policy, but it also reflects a part of the Muslim world that condemns the US for it’s essence. Materalism, women’s rights, and the dislocation of god from the center of society. That’s the ‘anti-American’ part, which extends beyond arguments over policy.
Ditto for some old 60s era leftists – they identified America with it’s sins, and were indeed ant-American.
But J Street and Brzizinsky (sp?) don’t fit that definition of anti-Israel. They merely have policy disagreements, which wholeheartedly accepting the essence of Israel: a Jewish state formally committed to democracy, thriving on the former ruins of ’48 Palestinians. and representing the ‘preferential option’ for Jewish nationhood globally.
Quibbles on the best way to secure that state long term aren’t anti-Israel by any stretch.
Israeli patriots seeking an Israeli nationhood inclusive of non-Jews (state of all citizens) aren’t even anti-Israel – Just anti-Zionist.
Only those seeking to turn back the clock on 1948 really qualify in my book. The Jewish groups espousing that are quite small and insignificant.
KFJ, does that mean we should reserve “anti-American” only for those who wish to “deliberately dismantle” America? Or does the “anti-” refer to those who stand against the general common interests of the elected government?
Is this the definition of anti-American? Opposing the government? That means half of America is anti-American every time the other party wins! Yes, I deeply oppose that definition as well. I’m with Jew Guevara all the way.
This cheapening of “anti-Israel” to anyone you disagree with makes the phrase meaningless. In this case, Brzezinski is weighing American national interest with that of a foreign nation. Since his profession is advising American security, for him to reach a conclusion that American soldier’s lives in Afghanistan and Iraq more important than Israel’s impunity perfectly acceptable. While you might not agree, berating him for prioritizing his own country’s interests first is no rationale to call him an Israel hater.
>>“Why would I let Dershowitz tell me what to do? I’m tired of the status quo, and not a single Jewish org in the established Jewish community has tried to hasten negotiations. In fact, I’ve come to believe they oppose negotiations. I’m tired of ideologues running my community — I want realists.”
As a realist, are you concerned by the fact that more Israeli civilians have been killed by terrorism since negotiation/concessions to the PLO began than in all the decades of the country beforehand?
>>“They can get out of our way, or they can join us.”
I don’t think they’ll be too offended if you charge straight ahead.
>>“I oppose the thought police and the sheep who submit to them.”
Thank goodness there’s only one brand of thought police.
“As a realist, are you concerned by the fact that more Israeli civilians have been killed by terrorism since negotiation/concessions to the PLO began than in all the decades of the country beforehand?”
Where are your facts and guidelines to back up this statement?!
Dersh: Against settlements
J Street: Also against settlements
Dersh: For Jewish state
J Street: Also for Jewish state
Dersh: For settled peace agreement
J Street: Also for settled peace agreement
Dersh: For sanctions on Iran
J Street: Also for sanctions on Iran!!
Difference between Dersh and J Street? J-Street knows when to shut its mouth.
Where are your facts and guidelines to back up this statement?!
It’s true, BBN.
But, that doesn’t change the fact that partition is the only option, and working with Fatah is the only option. There’s no other way to say the Zionist project (for those of us who think it’s worth saving.)
“save” Excuse me.
As a realist, are you concerned by the fact that more Israeli civilians have been killed by terrorism since negotiation/concessions to the PLO began than in all the decades of the country beforehand?
Negotations have caused terrorism? That’s an amazing contortion of cause and effect. You could also say that negotations have caused settlement construction, because construction was at record levels during the Oslo years. Coincidentally, construction and terrorism peaked simultaneously in the Second Intifada. Which caused which?
As a realist, I consider more than one variable.
Coincidentally, construction and terrorism peaked simultaneously in the Second Intifada
They’re mutually exclusive phenomena. (Although your point is taken.)
What? In no way are they mutually exclusive. For Palestinians the impact of settlement construction is very real. It means the closure of formerly open roads, the establishment of new checkpoints, the inability to farm land they have been farming for generations. That generates a variety of response. Some of which is to support a negotiated settlement, some of which is to support striking back at Israel via terrorism. I clearly think the former is the correct and moral choice, but I am not so blind as to think that there is no connection between settlement building, the apparatus of occupation that supports settlement, and Palestinian responses (of all kinds) to living under that regime.
Which helpfully explains why terrorism began when there were no settlements.
>>“Where are your facts and guidelines to back up this statement?!”
You never noticed this?? Alrighty….see below.
>>“Negotations have caused terrorism? That’s an amazing contortion of cause and effect.”
I never said that, KFJ. You need to get a little better at reading what people who say things you don’t like actually say.
If you want to look at some numbers, you can start here and then here. But really there’s a waterfall of data out there. One link should be more than enough to get you started. Not that one needs links considering that most of the people in Israel today survived it!
These are the raw numbers — apparently the most unpopular numbers in the world.
@COA.
Ok. We can agree that the settlement movement doesn’t really have anything to do with Palestinians (maybe that’s the root of the problem.)
For the question of do settlements affect violence?:
For Palestinians the impact of settlement construction is very real.
Ok. I’m not really qualified to discuss Palestinian society, or the psychological effect of the settlements on that community (we’ll have to take your word that you are.)
Your contention still leaves some questions. First, the settlements aren’t–by definition–the apparatus of the Israeli occupation. That apparatus is the Israeli military. According to your reasoning, Gaza did not come under full Israeli occupation until 1970 (Kfar Darom’s etablishment) and the Israeli occupation there ceased in 2005. Even more, the roadblocks/raids/arrests/assassinations in the West Bank have almost nothing to do with new settlement construction. They are functions of security warnings and Israeli political decisions (ie, trying to intimidate the Palestinians/showing them good faith.) If the settlements spur violence, then why were so many rockets flying out of Gaza after the 2005 evacuations?
Second, if Palestinian violence is directed against the settlements, then how do we explain Intifada II? Let’s recall the summer of 2000, when Clinton and Barak tried to trick the Nobel-Peace-Laureate Arafat into accepting a Palestinian state at Camp David. All sides agree that Barak offered to evacuate most of the settlements (although not most of the settlers, who would end up in large blocks.) The sides disagreed on if that offer was enough. Fine. Maybe it’s because I have a Western mentality, but if the Palestinians were going to use violence at the time, wouldn’t that violence have been directed at those areas/settlements which they thought should have been theirs but weren’t offered by Barak (ie, Gush Etzion, Maale Adumin, Ariel.) It’s interesting to remember, btw, that initially the Palestinians were only talking about the Temple Mount as the reason for the Camp David collapse, and that violence began ONLY because a Jew (albeit a controversial one) dared to visit the Jews’ holiest place–although Arafat’s Camp David team insisted that no Temple had ever stood on that Mount.
And, even if many Palestinians were so enraged at their predicament that they felt that violence was the best path (and that’s certainly understandable) then why didn’t they direct all of their attacks against Israeli soldiers (or even communities) in Gaza and the West Bank? Early that year, Hizbollah had demonstrated to the world this method’s efficacy? Hizbollah had defeated a vastly superior army by means of constant strikes against IDF targets in Lebanon, highlighting to average Israelis the futility of that occupation. Wouldn’t the Palestinians who turned to violence have followed suit?
If the goal was to get rid of the settlements, would they not have attacked the settlements only? Or, maybe they did attack the settlements that they wanted removed? They tried to attack those settlements every day, to make their message clear to the settlers who lived there. Every day, the settlers in Tel Aviv, and the coastal towns, and West Jerusalem, received the message loud and clear about what the violence was for.
@COA.
I might have misunderstood your point about I clearly think the former is the correct and moral choice, but I am not so blind as to think that there is no connection between settlement building, the apparatus of occupation that supports settlement, and Palestinian responses (of all kinds) to living under that regime.
If so, disregard that portion of my response.
Eric, I can take no other message from your comment except that Israeli civilians deaths are attributable to the peace process. What other message could I take? The peace process is caused by civilian deaths?
@Jonathan1
First, the settlements aren’t–by definition–the apparatus of the Israeli occupation. That apparatus is the Israeli military.
This overlooks the simple awareness that the Israeli military goes where the settlements go.
Second, if Palestinian violence is directed against the settlements, then how do we explain Intifada II?
“The Palestinians” as a whole did not decide to resort to terrorism as if there was a national referendum on the matter. Some of the most violent Palestinian factions opposed at all costs negotiations for anything less than the whole of Israel. They are the spoilers. They opposed Arafat the same way the settlers opposed (and ultimately assassinated) Yitzak Rabin. As negotiations continued, plenty terrorism was aimed at undermining the peace process itself.
Meanwhile, settlement construction was at its highest (meaning its record highest) during Oslo itself. As Palestinian commentators have said many times, they perceived negotiations to be a lie aimed at coopting their politicians while allowing Israel to keep stealing land at higher-than-ever rates. Palestinian frustration with their own politicians and Israel exploded. All that was needed was the straw on the camel’s back, and Arik Sharon’s Temple Mount visit was a big, fat straw. If only they had foreseen the hardening of Israeli society they would get in response…
why didn’t they direct all of their attacks against Israeli soldiers…If the goal was to get rid of the settlements, would they not have attacked the settlements only?
This is a really good question that I’ve asked myself plenty. I wonder if it’s because the settlements themselves are too heavily guarded and there was no border between Israel and the territories. I don’t know. But we can ask.
“The Palestinians” as a whole did not decide to resort to terrorism as if there was a national referendum on the matter.
That’s why I referred to “Palestinian violence” and “many Palestinians” and I wrote I’m not really qualified to discuss Palestinian society, or the psychological effect of the settlements on that community. Be fair, dude.
This overlooks the simple awareness that the Israeli military goes where the settlements go.
That’s because the Israeli military goes to every single place in the West Bank, and there are settlements in the West Bank. The settlers themselves, ironically, used this argument to contest the evacuation of those 4 communities in the northern West Bank. “Once the army leaves Homesh,” they claimed, “violence will run rampant.” Well, I don’t know why there isn’t a ton of violence in that area, but I can promise you that the IDF is there 24/7, just like it goes into Palestinian cities and villages every night (to protect the settlers therein?)
Some of the most violent Palestinian factions opposed at all costs negotiations for anything less than the whole of Israel. As negotiations continued, plenty of terrorism was aimed at undermining the peace process itself.
Ok. That was true before September 2000, but then things got a lot more confusing.
As Palestinian commentators have said many times, they perceived negotiations to be a lie aimed at co-opting their politicians while allowing Israel to keep stealing land at higher-than-ever rates. Palestinian frustration with their own politicians and Israel exploded.
I know. But, that argument lost much validity (for me) after the time period of July 2000-January 2001. Barak and Clinton were putting out proposals to remove most of the settlements. That’s indisputable.
I wonder if it’s because the settlements themselves are too heavily guarded and there was no border between Israel and the territories. I don’t know. But we can ask.
I can tell you that many of the settlements were barely protected through 2001, when the bombs were bursting in the air in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv? You can ask, and there might be a good reason, but the reason just might be Or, maybe they did attack the settlements that they wanted removed?
>>“Eric, I can take no other message from your comment except that Israeli civilians deaths are attributable to the peace process. What other message could I take? The peace process is caused by civilian deaths?
—Kung Fu Jew · March 26th, 2010 at 1:06 am”
Obviously the peace process encompasses a great deal more than “negotiations” — the process with the PLO included the reliquishment of land and sovereignty, and the transfer of money and weapons. The story of its effect on Israeli security is told by the numbers.