When I argued at the J Street Conference that J Street couldn't simultaneously appeal to people with Walt/Mearsheimer-esque views on Israel and a significant chunk of the American Jewish population, one of the names I cited as an example of the former was Phillip "The U.S. Without Israel is Like A Fish Without A Bicycle" Weiss, who writes for the Nation. I tried not to exaggerate the connection -- for all I knew, Weiss was just an anti-Zionist writer who had a nice word for J Street.
But it turns out Weiss attended J Street's conference, and he apparently not ony recognized me but was closely studying my facial expressions in the hallway:
I saw Jonathan Chait of the New Republic glowering as if he had just been forced to dine on porcupine. The institutions that Chait is engaged with, the New Republic and AIPAC, had just taken a giant hit. Celebration. ...
But still I celebrate it. I keep thinking about Jonathan Chait’s angry face.
Creepy. I don't want to ruin Weiss's celebration, but I had a terrific time at J Street's conference, and I left feeling much better about the group's future, for reasons I'll get into momentarily. I suppose my default facial expression is a little cold, especially early in the morning and in crowded places. But I'm a happy guy, and I had a great time debating Matt Yglesias, who I disagree with quite a bit on foreign policy but is really smart, and was extremely gracious in conceding my main point. Also, while I am "engaged" with TNR -- I'm employed here! -- I have no idea what Weiss is talking about with his claim that I'm "engaged" with AIPAC. A couple times a staffer at AIPAC emailed me, but by that standard I'm "engaged" with half the policy groups in Washington. I'm also a little confused by his belief that I'm part of some conspiracy to destroy J Street. I thought this would have been refuted by the fact that I, you know, appeared at J Street's conference.
Anyway, I'm encouraged by the fact that J Street's leader, Jeremy Ben-Ami, seems to recognize exactly the predicament I wrote and spoke about. In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, he repudiated the "one state solution" and the Walt/Mearsheimer thesis, called U.S. military aid to Israel non-negotiable, and said he welcomed attacks from his left. In a subsequent Jerusalem Post interview, he described J Street's ideology as similar to Kadima. If true, that would put J Street slightly to my ideological right (I'm closer to the Labor view.) The fact that Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the head of the reform rabbi organization and a relative dove, was booed at J Street's conference for criticizing the U.N. Commission on Human Rights shows how big the gap is between Ben-Ami's positions, which are well within the Jewish-American mainstream, and the passions of J Street's most ardent supports, who are not.
I think, in reality, J Street is going to remain further left than Kadima (and me) -- maybe close to the Meretz line, but certainly far, far to the right of the likes of Phillip Weiss. (By the way, I'm not slurring Weiss by calling him anti-Zionist -- that is his proud self-identification.) Weiss in his gloating post predicts that it's "inevitable" that J Street will endorse a full boycott of Israel. I won't say that's impossible, but it's vanishingly unlikely. J Street aspires to be a politically influential group that challenges AIPAC for the loyalty of the Jewish mainstream. An organization representing Jewish anti-Zionists would have about as much clout as a group representing Jewish professional athletes.
Before this week, I thought J Street was going to be a small left-wing group with more press clippings than members. Now I think it's got a chance to become what it says it is -- a mainstream liberal Jewish organization that helps redefine "pro-Israel" away from territorial maximalism. That would be a cause for celebration.
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (7)
I'm Zionist because I, like Yglesias, live in a world where (mostly ethnic) nationalism remains the only apparent mechanism for 'self determination' and framework for peace available to most of the world. Nationalism, per se, sort of sickens me. But, genocide sickens me much, much more. And the multiple pathologies that accrue around anti-semitism--in America, Europe, Arabia, Asia--frequently drive me to angry despair, so I cannot talk about Israel with 95% of my non-Jewish liberal friends, with whom I agree on most everything else (I, er, get upset, and sound a lot like Marty Peretz, whose tone I frequently find abrasive, myself.)
I've been hoping against hope that J Street might turn o ... view full comment
I'm Zionist because I, like Yglesias, live in a world where (mostly ethnic) nationalism remains the only apparent mechanism for 'self determination' and framework for peace available to most of the world. Nationalism, per se, sort of sickens me. But, genocide sickens me much, much more. And the multiple pathologies that accrue around anti-semitism--in America, Europe, Arabia, Asia--frequently drive me to angry despair, so I cannot talk about Israel with 95% of my non-Jewish liberal friends, with whom I agree on most everything else (I, er, get upset, and sound a lot like Marty Peretz, whose tone I frequently find abrasive, myself.)
I've been hoping against hope that J Street might turn out to be a strong defender of Zionism without confusing criticism of any particularly wrong-headed Israeli strategies (e.g., especially west bank settlements) with Anti-zionism. If it goes in the direction of Ben-Ami, I will join it. If it tacks toward the Walt/Mersheimer/The Nation left, I'm out.
As you can tell, I'm more passionate than bright about these matters, but I probably well represent the feelings of many Jewish American liberals.
If indeed J Street becomes increasingly identified with the Meretz political line, it would be worth contemplating that Meretz "commands" no more than 3 seats out of the 120 in the Knesset. Thus, it represents about 2.5% of the Israeli political spectrum or another way of putting it, is that it is a marginal group unsupported by the vast majority of Israelis. Is this really the group J Street wants to identify with? Ben-Ami's disingenuous attempt to link J Street with Kadima was laughable given the vast gap between Kadima's views on the settlements and security--far more in line with Bibi's--than those brought to the J Street confab.
If indeed J Street becomes increasingly identified with the Meretz political line, it would be worth contemplating that Meretz "commands" no more than 3 seats out of the 120 in the Knesset. Thus, it represents about 2.5% of the Israeli political spectrum or another way of putting it, is that it is a marginal group unsupported by the vast majority of Israelis. Is this really the group J Street wants to identify with? Ben-Ami's disingenuous attempt to link J Street with Kadima was laughable given the vast gap between Kadima's views on the settlements and security--far more in line with Bibi's--than those brought to the J Street confab.
Writers of nonsense beware, Jonathan Chait might be coming after you. Ayn Rand is long dead, so she needn't worry. Naomi Klein is very much alive, however, and got filleted by Jonathan some time back. Now it is Phillip Weiss' turn.
Writers of nonsense beware, Jonathan Chait might be coming after you. Ayn Rand is long dead, so she needn't worry. Naomi Klein is very much alive, however, and got filleted by Jonathan some time back. Now it is Phillip Weiss' turn.
I saw many more figures associated with Kadima and Labor at the conference than with Meretz. This is a distinction from Brit Tzedek conferences. American Jewry as a whole is to the left of the Israeli public at the moment--after all, it hasn't been rocketed for years. Given a choice between the Likudniks of the ZOA who run much of the mainstream Jewish and Zionist establishment in America and a group more associated with Kadima and Labor, most American Jews will probably choose the latter.
I saw many more figures associated with Kadima and Labor at the conference than with Meretz. This is a distinction from Brit Tzedek conferences. American Jewry as a whole is to the left of the Israeli public at the moment--after all, it hasn't been rocketed for years. Given a choice between the Likudniks of the ZOA who run much of the mainstream Jewish and Zionist establishment in America and a group more associated with Kadima and Labor, most American Jews will probably choose the latter.
"I think, in reality, J Street is going to remain further left than Kadima (and me) -- maybe close to the Meretz line, but certainly far, far to the right of the likes of Phillip Weiss. (By the way, I'm not slurring Weiss by calling him anti-Zionist -- that is his proud self-identification.)"
Not only is Weiss an anti-Zionist he is also antisemitic who has been endoresed by stromfront.com as posters at Zword have shown:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=6093346#post6093346
He also posts on Patrick Buchanan's website which ... view full comment
"I think, in reality, J Street is going to remain further left than Kadima (and me) -- maybe close to the Meretz line, but certainly far, far to the right of the likes of Phillip Weiss. (By the way, I'm not slurring Weiss by calling him anti-Zionist -- that is his proud self-identification.)"
Not only is Weiss an anti-Zionist he is also antisemitic who has been endoresed by stromfront.com as posters at Zword have shown:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=6093346#post6093346
He also posts on Patrick Buchanan's website which puts him in bed with the far right.
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/mar/23/00006/
J Street is doomed by its internal contradictions.
J Street is doomed by its internal contradictions.
The issue isn't whether J Street supports the Kadima, Labor or Meretz line. The issue is what does J Street consider to be legitimate criticism of Israeli policy or practice that is to the right of its preferences? The handful of disinvites to the conference show that J Street does have some limits on what it considers legitimate criticism. However, it only shows that the most flagrant violations cross that limit.
The issue isn't whether J Street supports the Kadima, Labor or Meretz line. The issue is what does J Street consider to be legitimate criticism of Israeli policy or practice that is to the right of its preferences? The handful of disinvites to the conference show that J Street does have some limits on what it considers legitimate criticism. However, it only shows that the most flagrant violations cross that limit.