J Street presses division inside Jewish community, blaming neocons for leading ‘charge to war in Iraq’
The other day we reported on an effort by the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League to maintain a Jewish political monolith on Israel– essentially, don’t argue in front of the goyim because it could fracture American support for Israel.
Well interestingly, neither “the left” nor the right in the Jewish community is buying the pledge. They want the fight! This is something I have long pushed for. Unfortunately, it’s a political battle over How Zionist the Jewish Community Will Be– extreme or mild. But it does portend a battle over Zionism itself.
And good for J Street, the “left” in this battle, for foregrounding the right wing’s support for the Iraq war.
J Street has now issued two statements in this battle, lately taking on the neoconservatives as the faction in the Jewish community that pushed the Iraq war and wants a Greater Israel:
There’s a part of our community – represented by the Emergency Committee for Israel – whose supporters led the charge to war in Iraq, who ally with the Christian Zionist movement, and who affiliate with the Tea Party. This part of the community sees nothing wrong with unlimited settlement expansion and no need to actively pursue a two-state resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They seem perfectly content to affiliate with those who engage in hate-filled harangues and to demonize Palestinians – and Arabs and Muslims generally – without reservation and to engage in campaigns of smears against their opponents.
There’s another part of our community – for which J Street speaks – that believes that Israel’s security and survival depends on ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a two-state solution and that is deeply committed to American leadership in helping that to happen
And here is the rightwing also declining the pledge, reported by Haaretz:
A couple of days after the pledge landed in the mailboxes of the Jewish activists, Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) Executive Director Matt Brooks issued a combative response, saying: “This effort to stifle debate on U.S. policy toward Israel runs counter to this American tradition. Accordingly, the RJC will not be silenced on this or any issue.”
“An open and vigorous debate on the questions confronting our country is the cornerstone of the American electoral process. Allowing the American people to see where candidates stand, pro and con, on critical issues, is the hallmark of our free and democratic political system. For this reason, the RJC will not be a signer to this pledge,” he concluded.
Emergency Committee for Israel joined the opposition to the pledge with a blunt opening: “You must be kidding” and promised that “this attempt to silence those of us who have “questioned the current administration’s foreign policy approach vis-a-vis Israel” will re-energize us… Directors Harris and Foxman need a refresher course on the virtues of free speech and robust debate in a democracy. Their effort to stifle discussion and debate is unworthy of the best traditions of America, and of Israel.”