The New Republic

Excellent article, cutting through the self-serving cant of most participants in this debate. I have one cavil: Hamas does not want Jews to leave or submit to Islamic rule. Hamas, which teaches its children ab ovo that Jews are the "sons [and daughters] of pigs and apes," wants all Jews to cease to exist. Like its organizational and ideological parent, the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, it gives primary allegiance to the notion of a worldwide caliphate and concomitant rule under Sharia, with dhimmi status for all who do not become Muslims. It takes literally sections of the Koran calling upon Muslims, in the end time (as defined by Muslim extremists) to kill all remaining Jews, including ones hiding, literally or metaphorically, under rocks or behind trees. While condescending Left intellectuals excoriated Bush-era foreign policy spokespersons as naive or simplistic for positing an alliance between Shi'a (Hizbollah/Iran/Syrian government) and Sunni (Hamas/AQ/Muslim Brotherhood extremists)- remembered the Left's would-be clever line?- "Hamas would use severed Shi'a heads to play soccer with"- the fact is that there is an alliance of convenience between the Islamist extremists from both major Muslim sects, with the Jews seen as enemy number one. Remember the line of Hasan Nasrallah, the Iran/Syrian-puppet head of Lebanese Shi'a Hizbollah: "I hope all the Jews [in the world] will come to Israel; it will make the job of killing them all so much easier." There is no reason for Israel, or Jews, to believe that Hamas' leaders deviate one iota from this exterminationist ideology.

- macb

January 22, 2009 at 10:05pm

Chait is correct that "J Street sits outside of the Jewish mainstream," but he fails to appreciate that the larger problem lies with the Jewish mainstream rather than J Street. Until mainstream American Jewish opinion turns against the continued obstinance of Israel (e.g., absolutely continual construction of settlements in the West Bank from 1968 to today, regardless of the party in power and regardless of Israel's treaty commitments), there can be no peace in Palestine. Kudos to J Street and shame on Chait. That's not to say that J Street is always right in either its facts or its tone, but its ultimate goal is truly in the best interests of Israel. Attempting to twist the terms of the discussion by dwelling on the failings of Hamas or Fatah just further justifies the Alphonse and Gaston routine that the Israelis and Palestinians have engaged in for the past two decades. Someone has to go through that door first. Chait's final mocking paragraph is cute, but it trivializes the seriousness of this debate. Israel deserves better.

- John Douglas

January 24, 2009 at 12:09pm

What a disappointment. Chait teases with a headline that suggests he is really tackling this thorny topic only to deliver thin gruel -- a balanced approach. Yawn. The flaws inherent in J Street's world view are epitomized by what Haaretz editor David Landau supposedly told Condaleeza Rice in December 2007. In a private gathering, he is said to have referred to Israel as a “failed state” politically, one in need of a U.S.-imposed settlement. He was said to have implored Rice to intervene, asserting that the Israeli government wanted “to be raped” and that it would be like a “wet dream” for him (Landau) to see this happen. Would you call those who want America to rape Israel friends of the Jewish state? Let me answer the question with another question: Would you call a woman who advocated for her sister's rape a feminist?

- Diane

January 27, 2009 at 12:40am

It was a great article, with good arguments, and suddenly I read: "Is Walt--whose book portrays Israel as a force for evil throughout its existence--pro-Israel?" And it lost all its credibility....and objectivity...

- Israel defender

January 27, 2009 at 8:59am

Bravo, Mr. Chait. Excellent work. I have nothing to add.

- G

January 27, 2009 at 9:27am

Another great piece by Chait. I would also suggest that it’s much more comfortable for Jewish academicians in the West these days to criticize Israel then to defend it. Hence I wouldn’t give the “J” crowd high marks for courage.

- jdyer

January 27, 2009 at 11:07am

J street's comments about the Gaza campaign is telling: “When Israel began its counterattack against Hamas, J Street declared that it would not "pick a side." How can anyone trust a lobbying group that can’t tell the difference between people Israelis defending themselves from attacks and Hamas’ wantonly attacking civilians? I realize that I am obliged to say that criticizing Israeli policies in the West Bank is not antisemitic. This is a given and I have done so before many people here could locate the West Bank on a map. Besides I never talk about my criticism to hateful people.

- jdyer

January 27, 2009 at 11:08am

where is my post?

- Truman

January 27, 2009 at 12:16pm

American opinion WAS polled, it showed a sharply divided electorate.

- mmathog

January 27, 2009 at 12:17pm

Chait, who professes to be moderate, castigates those who call people who deliberately kill women, children and other noncombatants murderers. Israel knew beyond any doubt that the strategy it took in Gaza would mean the killing of hundreds of innocents. To call this premeditated murder is only to state the obvious. Chait shows that even a moderate Jewish voice that does not toe the Likud line will not be tolerated. He tries to dress up his "self-hating Jew" remarks in moderate sounding language, but the message is still clear - no criticism of Israel allowed.

- Jack

January 27, 2009 at 12:22pm

With all due respect to Mr. Chait, I do not agree that the statement that "nobody has suffered more than the Palestinians" is banal. I do not remember who first said it, but I remember once reading that it was essential for the Israeli right to stop comparing Israel's enemies to the Nazis, because there is no negotiation or compromise with Nazis. In other words, Arafat was not Hitler, but to call him that made peace impossible. Words have meaning, and their meaning matters. Similarly, I think that Obama's statement can have a negative effect. It encourages the Palestinians to view their suffering as uniquely bad (which it is clearly not - tell that to the people of Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Darfur, or the Congo) and thereby encourages them to hold out for maximal demands that conflict with the possibility of a negotiated, compromise solution. In addition, such statements, encourage the Muslim world at large to excuse terrorism by making it seem like Palestinian suffering is so bad that a violent response is justified. Finally, such a statement encourages the kind of (verbal/political) attacks on the Jewish state that make the Israelis fear for their future, and in so doing makes them less willing to compromise. Therefore, although I presume Obama was simply trying to make a statement of concern for the Palestinians (which is valid), I still think that it is legitimate to call into question that language.

- jgalun

January 27, 2009 at 12:33pm

Israel Defender: The question about Walt was what is known as a "rhetorical question". The answer is obviously "No". But seriously: those who pose as "friends of Israel" --but have an agenda that differs substantially from what most Israelis perceive as their own best interests--seem to divide into two groups. The first group seeks to create a rift between Israel and a sympathetic American public. This group could care less about Israel or the Jews and simply thinks there's more to gain by being on the side of the Arabs. Since they can't say this openly, they speak in terms of a "lobby" that's leading America in the wrong direction and focus on all of Israel's faults and transgressions. The second group consists of those who fancy themselves to be inhabitants of a higher moral plane than average Israelis and their American supporters. If only Israel would follow their moral guidance and be "the first to reach out in sincere friendship", all could be resolved. Whatever you might point out as an example of a positive, unreciprocated gesture -- such as unilateral withdrawal from Gaza -- will be found to be lacking some essential ingredient that would have made it turn out better. The first group nurtures a clandestine wet-dream of a world without Israel. The second group means well but lacks the wherewithal to see what's actually going on. They base their security strategies on their dreams of a better world rather than the sordid realities of treachery and genocidal hatred. Bastards and fools, respectively.

- willjames77

January 27, 2009 at 12:46pm

If your child dies due to manslaughter are you any less hurt or enraged than if they are killed via first degree murder? I use this analogy to question the idea that Israel's retaliatory strikes in Gaza and elsewhere really are much better than random Hamas rocket attacks and suicide bombings. Sure your 7 year old niece was killed by an Israeli missile, but your uncle was in Hamas so really, you have less right to be angry than a mother in southern Israel who's child was killed by a rocket.

- gflib

January 27, 2009 at 1:29pm

Jack, it's not fair to say this was the Likud line. It was also the line of Kadima, Labor, and even Meretz. In other words, there was brought support for this policy across the Israeli political spectrum. The only opponents were the Communist parties.

- jgalun

January 27, 2009 at 1:55pm

Drawing a clear line between supporters and critics of Israel is an impossible task because the motives of the supporters (as with the motives of the critics) are many and often contradictory. For example, consider the neocons and the Christianists. The former defend Israel because they believe it is both the right thing to do and because it furthers our national interest. The latter defend Israel because of the Jews role in fulfilling biblical prophesy. Could two groups, who ardently defend Israel, have such different motives? Further, I could argue (as many have) that these two "supporters" of Israel don't do Israel any favors and actually weaken Israel by empowering the right-wing in Israel, on the one hand (who would never compromise with the non-Jews with whom they share the land and history), and the anti-semites, on the other (who wish to do their part in fulfilling biblical philosophy). To you a friend, to me an enemy.

- raylward

January 27, 2009 at 2:51pm

It's nice to see that Obama is trying to taking some steps to fix our domestic and internation problems. I hope that Congress with help shape a stimulus package that will actually benefit Americans in the long run and not just tie us over for a week or so. The war on terror will shift to the countries that are actually harboring terrorist instead of staying in a country that is now self-sufficient. Americans will get adequate health care and education, while we try to help change the image of our country for the rest of the world. One way of doing this is to help eliminate global poverty, domestic and foreign. The Borgen Project (www.borgenproject.org) has some interesting facts about global poverty and how reducing it will help our society. It would cost $19 billion to eliminate global poverty, which is extremely small compared ot the $522 billion the U.S. government spent on our defense budget last year. By eliminating global poverty we are setting ourselves up to have stronger allies or new ones, we open up the doors to new resources and help make our society safer to live in.

- cougar_gal06

January 27, 2009 at 3:38pm

jgalun, I think Obama said no one was suffering as much as the Palestinian people in the Arab-Israeli conflict, not everywhere, although the distinction, no matter how clear, was not picked up on by the Palestinians or some more rightward Israel suppoters

- Adam

January 27, 2009 at 4:29pm

"Gentlemen, gentlemen! This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who..." Normally I look forward to Chait's columns. I'd classify this one as a member of the "Sanctimonious outrage of the pious middle" category. It's all balderdash and brouhaha. Noise and no substance.

- James F. Elliott

January 27, 2009 at 4:37pm

A ONE STATE SOLUTION IS THE ONLY SOLUTION I was born in Baghdad, Iraq. When I lived there until September 1959, my observation was that the Arabs and Jews lived together like family and friend. They even were married to each other. When I used to go to school, I had to go through the Jewish neighborhood every school day. Many times, we always helped the Orthodox Jews on their Sabbath by doing certain physical jobs. I never at any one time saw or witnessed a fight or retaliation to any Jew or Arab in that neighborhood. The only solution for the Arab Israeli problem is to find a way to create "ONE-STATE" for both to live together like they did in the Middle East before 1948.

- JAMAL SHALLAL, jshallal@e-bp.com

January 27, 2009 at 5:52pm

Ok - that didn't make sense, although you tried to sound objective about J Street for a while - I know Marty's reading and you can't annoy him. The only objection you had to J Street's position was they don't make a "moral distinction". Why should they? Is the death of an Israeli civilian any more or less heinous than the death of an Arab civilian? Shouldn't the trigger-puller of a violent act and his chain of command be responsible for each respectively? (despite whatever reasons they give for justification) Self-defense justifications - against terrorism or occupation - are euphemisms for revenge attacks. If they didn't pull that trigger, that civilian would be alive. And when those numbers reach a 100:1 kill ratio - you're right - we cannot call it moral equivalency. But when comparing single civilian deaths - whether that comes through the shrapnel cutting into flesh of a civilian from a high-tech aerial munition - or a suicide vest/Qassam rocket - both have a killer and a civilian victim. There are no moral distinctions whether you're allegedly trying to maximize or minimize civilian casualties - it's the number you kill that matters. Results matter. You need to refine what you mean by morality.

- David

January 27, 2009 at 8:54pm

Jack isn't criticizing Israel he is demonizing Israelies or Jews. Jack everyone here knows you view of Jews. Got anything new to say?

- Toby

January 27, 2009 at 10:40pm

Firstly, calling the Israeli attack on Gaza a 'counter attack' is akin to the Germans claiming that they were returning Polish fire at Gleiwitz in 1939. Secondly, the wanton rain of Hamas missiles killed a handful of people in Israel, over a period of months. The IDF attack on Gaza killed 200 Palestinians in its first minutes. Given the timing of the attack, the type of weapons used, and the crowed target area, a reasonable person could anticipate that the IDF action would cause hundreds of civilian casualties. To infer that this is somehow different from Hamas' criminal rocket attacks is absurd and obscene.

- Splattle

January 28, 2009 at 2:56am

Jonathan Chait’s thoughtful critique of the J Street misses the mark in a few places. It concludes with “Surely J Street would agree.” that their best interest requires his pointing out “… when it advocates moral absurdities and meaningless tripe.”. Surely, it would not agree. Liberal critics of Israel regard the absurdities to be in the argumentation of others and any criticism of them to be unwarranted if not reactionary. In addition, Mr. Chait would endorse the notion that “… Israel’s action [in Gaza] has gone too far …”. Israel’s action in Gaza, like its earlier action in Lebanon, left almost all of the enemy combatants still alive, armed, and unreconciled to an Israel defined by any borders. Furthermore, Israel is now depending on Egypt to prevent the further importation of rockets, etc. like it foolishly depended on UNIFIL to prevent the rearmament of Hezbollah. These actions hardly constitute going too far. Renewed attacks on southern Israel may be the net result of not going far enough. It is worth noting that the onerous Likud initiated the forced removal of “settlements” from Gaza and the removal of the Israeli army from the Gazan-Egyptian border. Likud Prime Minister Sharon adamantly drove this “separation”, and the net consequence was years of terror for the residents of southern Israel. Chait is correct; one should not reflexively support the Likud platform. Finally, in the “maximalist terms” of Israel’s supporters, armed attacks on Israel by its neighbors over six decades after the “two-state solution” of 1947 and unrelieved by the “two-state solution” at Camp David in 2000 do constitute victimhood and encirclement. The relentless misrepresentation of the conflict by the mass media adds to the victimization. And now we have the J Street purveyors of moral absurdities and meaningless tripe adding to the existential threat to Israel.

- James Michael Price

January 28, 2009 at 9:17am

It amaze me, why do the American left aka as the liberals are so obsessed about Israel and the Arab-Jewish conflict? They don’t understand Arabic, they don’t understand Hebrew, they don’t know history, they never lived in an Arab country to understand their culture and their way of thinking, they ignore the existence of middle-eastern Jews (mizrahi Jews) and their history, they don’t know why Jabotinsky its followers where called revisionists. They are only scholars, academicians (sons and grandsons of Ashkenazim Jews) that read books, papers, all from the same source... Their feet and head are deeply rooted in American culture and they forget or don’t know that Jews are culturally and ethnically descendent of middle-easterner tribes.

- Salomon Mizrahi

January 28, 2009 at 9:20am

Jack, as you state the IDF surely did know that engaging an armed force prosecuting armed attacks on Israeli citizens from within populated areas would result in non-combatant deaths. And one-time presidential peace candidate George McGovern knew that his World War II bomber would do the same thing as his bomber group took-down the manufacturing infrastructure of Germany. Neither McGovern nor the IDF are war criminals for the horrible by-product of the Allied war effort. The Geneva Convention identifies intentional attacks directed at unarmed people and the use of a civilian population as a shield by an armed force as war crimes. Hamas is the war criminal by any fair-minded, knowledgeable judgment, i.e. not yours.

- James Michael Price

January 28, 2009 at 9:25am

I am Jewish Zionist ((even bar mitvahed at The Wall)and support J-Street which finally gives us a pro-REAL pece lobby that is not the all-Likud/mostly-Republican line from AIPAC(see Massings article in NY Review from a few years ago), to go with think tank role of Israel Policy Forum and grassroots organizing and education of Brit Tzedek v'Shalom and American Friend of Peace Now. By real Peace, as opposed lip service, may I suggest the following slogan, derived from at least two different sages: "It's the Occupation, stupid. The rest is commentary". The fact is that since Oslo, through Likud or Labor governments, Israel has expanded the settlements throughout the West Bank. Until the occupation, roablocks and settlements,etc. end, the Palestinians will fight. And phony peace "talks" do not mean one is really pro-Peace. That is what J-Street means. And it is disengenuous to not acknowledge this.

- DrSteveB

January 28, 2009 at 9:41am

Please post, NOW! Some people, like Jack, merely repeat what they have already said. Jack's antisemitic views weren't true the first time he said them and they are not true now.

- Truman

January 28, 2009 at 10:36am

The problem with the comparison between Iran and Israel, is that Iran's foreign policy has been an almost complete success. The United States destroyed its most dangerous enemy Iraq. It has gained influence in the peninsula that is almost inexplicable given it is Shiite in an Sunni dominated region and it is on the brink of obtaining a credible WMD deterrent that will ensure that it will be immune from any Lebanon type attack by Israel for actions of Iran's proxies. Israel on the other hand is facing a nuclear armed Iran, has suffered a serious strategic defeat in Lebanon, has greatly increased the possibility of an Islamic revolution in Egypt which could very credibly lead to an extremely hostile nuclear armed enemy that would be in open collaboration with Hamas. Anyone who says that Israel is better off than it was eight years ago, has the burden of explaining how this could be true and exactly when their policies are going pay off for Israel.

- Robert Lee Hotchkiss, Jr.

January 28, 2009 at 12:47pm

"Israel knew beyond any doubt that the strategy it took in Gaza would mean the killing of hundreds of innocents." Completely illogical argument. Then any act of defense or defense of others that the defender knew would cause civilian deaths would be wrong. The US knew that protecting the Bosnians from the Serbs would kill Serb civilians. Was that wrong?

- Dave

January 28, 2009 at 1:37pm

There was an excellent letter on Juan Cole's blog from a former US soldier who served in Iraq. He said no civilized nation, including the US, would do to a civilian population what The IDF did in Gaza. He had been in the attack on Fallugah? and spoke of how the US troops there deliberately withheld fire when civilians were in the area, often at great risk to themselves and how they would never use rockets or artillery to get one enemy soldier if he was in proximity to civilians because it would be immoral to do so. They would take the morally proper, but dangerous, military response of going in after that combatant. Compare that to what the IDF did in Gaza. What happened in Gaza was a specific decision by Israel's leaders to limit IDF casualties at the expense of Gazan civilians, for domestic political purposes. (And I notice that, contrary to Chait's claim, the old antisemitic smear still lives and flourishes here for critics of Israeli policy, ignoring the fact that Palestinians are semites).

- Jack

January 28, 2009 at 4:16pm

Its ok, according to most world opinion, for Hamas to promote the killing of all the Israelies and hide behind civilians while doing its best to kill as many Israelies as possible. Its murder for Israel to defend itself since, because the very nature of Hamas's strategy means innocent Palestinians will be killed. Therefore, the only moral choice Israel has is to commit suicide.

- JohnB

January 28, 2009 at 6:31pm

JAMAL SHALLAL, "A ONE STATE SOLUTION IS THE ONLY SOLUTION I was born in Baghdad, Iraq. When I lived there until September 1959, my observation was that the Arabs and Jews lived together like family and friends." This is nonsense, Jamal. Jews were ethnically cleansed from Iraq in the late 40's early. Only a few Jews remained in Iraq by 1959 and in the mid 60's many Jews were publicly hanged. You need to study your own history.

- alain

January 28, 2009 at 6:56pm

"The US knew that protecting the Bosnians from the Serbs would kill Serb civilians. Was that wrong?" The US had not illegally occupied the Serbs or tried to apartheid their people. Your analogy fails, Dave. Resistance to occupation is moral (check Geneva); turning state violence against civilians is immoral (check Bible).

- Ara

January 29, 2009 at 6:29am

RE: "It calls itself the "pro-peace, pro-Israel lobby." Well, who opposes peace? Everybody has their own iteration of peace, from Hamas (all Jews decide to leave the Middle East or submit to Islamic rule) to the Israeli settler movement (Palestinians decide to move to Jordan or submit to perpetual Israeli occupation) to more reasonable compromises in between. Among advocates of a two-state solution, the debate focuses on whether Palestinian or Israeli intransigence is the major impediment. Labeling an ideology "pro-peace" presupposes the answer to the question "What is the best way to achieve peace?" Chait follows the false AIPAC narrative, finding equivalency between Hamas' actuallity (stuck in Gaza) to the right wing settlers (de facto rule of extending occupation and increase in settlements by all government, Likud & Labor; despite Oslo; right through the present day). The problem is the occupation and the settlements. J-Street is Pro-Peace compared to AIPAC's pro-endless tslking (while the facts the ground are more occupationa dn more settlements). That is the difference. It is a real difference.

- DrSteveB

January 29, 2009 at 8:48am

"The US had not illegally occupied the Serbs or tried to apartheid their people." This is certainly debatable--land gained in a defensive war is not occupied until all hostilities against it stop. "Your analogy fails, Dave. Resistance to occupation is moral (check Geneva)" Palestinians deliberately target civilians. This is the antithesis of the Geneva Conventions. There is nothing in international law that says people who feel they are occupied can purposefully try to kill as many civilians as they want "turning state violence against civilians is immoral (check Bible)." Civilians dying as a result of an attack on a millitary force, such as Hamas, is not illegal. See below: "Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[1] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur." Article 52 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions Under international law Hamas is completely responsible for any civilian deaths as they attack from civilian areas and use civilians has human shields.

- Dave

January 29, 2009 at 12:46pm

Pres. Carter did NOT compare ISrael-Palestine to South Africa. He compared it to apartheid. Apartheid is two peoples living in the same area segregated from each other with one group holding supreme dominance over the other. That is the definition. That is the West Bank and Gaza today.

- Recher

January 29, 2009 at 3:21pm

Mr. Alain: I do not know where you read your information. I KNOW MY HISTORY BETTER THAN YOU DO. YOUR INFORMATION IS PROPAGANDA FROM PEOPLE WHO DO NOT WANT PEACE. YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG BECAUSE I NEVER WITNESSED ANYTHING OR HANGING THAT YOU MENTIONED. MY FATHER WAS A BUSINESS MAN AND WORKED MOSTLY WITH JEWISH BUSINESS MEN.

- JAMAL SHALLAL

January 29, 2009 at 4:52pm

Recher, the situations in SA and Israel are totally different, historically, politically, militarally and socially. To say that there is apartheid in Israel is like saying that there is socialism in the US because there is social security. It's that ignorant.

- Robbins

January 29, 2009 at 5:13pm

Excellent point, Alain. The Arab Muslims AT BEST only tolerated Jews in their presence for centuries, and at worst carried out pogroms that would have made the Tsarists blanch. This fantasy about the Edenic existence of Jews in Arab Muslim nations, before, during, and after the Ottoman empire, is a load of, well...

- macb

January 30, 2009 at 10:32am

This is from jpost.com "Gaza victims describe human shield use Jan. 29, 2009 jpost staff , THE JERUSALEM POST "Members of a Gaza family whose farm was turned into a "fortress" by Hamas fighters have reported that they were helpless to stop Hamas from using them as human shields. They told the official Palestinian Authority daily newspaper that for years Hamas had used their property and homes as military installations from which the group would launch rockets into Israel, dig tunnels and store arms. According to the victims, those who tried to object were shot in the legs by Hamas operatives. Palestinian Media Watch quoted the official Palestinian Authority daily, Al-Hayat al-Jadida as reporting on January 27, "The Abd Rabbo family kept quiet while Hamas fighters turned their farm in the Gaza strip into a fortress. Right now they are waiting for the aid promised by the [Hamas] movement after Israel bombed the farm and turned it into ruins." According to the report, the hill on which the Abd Rabbo family lives overlooks Sderot, making it an ideal military position for Hamas fighters. The Abd Rabbo family members emphasized to the paper that they were not Hamas activists and that they were still loyal to the Fatah movement, but that they had been unable to prevent the armed squads from entering their neighborhood at night."

- Jacob

January 30, 2009 at 11:16am

All this talks means the AIPAC machine is afraid of competition. Good for J Street.

- Juan

January 31, 2009 at 6:27pm

My biggest problem with J Street, Jewish Americans, or anybody else telling Israelis what's good and right for them is a moral one. If we don't live there, within Qassam and suicide-terrorism range, don't send our children to the IDF (or serve in the reserves ourselves), don't pay taxes or vote there, we have no right to tell them what risks are worth taking. It's as though I said to you, "I know your neighbor has been threatening to kill you, and trying to do so for decades, but he doesn't really mean it. You really should unlock your door, disarm your alarm, and give up whatever other defenses you have. You'll thank me for it in the end. In the meanwhile, best of luck, I'll be out of town for a while [actually, forever]." Wonderful: We get the moral high ground, they bear the risks. And afterwards we either get to say "I told you so, isn't peace wonderful," or "Uh-oh, what a shame about that nice country you used to have."

- Nevet Basker

February 1, 2009 at 11:33am

The biggest problem with J-Street is that it is an outrageous attempt to interfere in Israeli democracy. AIPAC and other American Jews interfere, you say? Well, why duplicate their error? And why take the interference further - J-Street is an actual PAC, contributing to candidates, which AIPAC is not. Israeli democracy is on the wrong track, you say - or is dysfunctional? That's still no excuse; outside interference in democracy, like outside interference in a free market, usually make things worse and should be done very sparingly. Finally, the Arabs become most realistic when confronted not with US pressure on israel, but with US refusal to pressure Israel. Only then does it dawn on them that they will have to compromise with the Israelis. On all these grounds, J-Street is worse than misguided - it is criminal.

- TNR Reader

March 12, 2009 at 7:40pm

Jamal, you are engaging in revisionist history. Historians from Fernandez-Morera to Bat Yeor have shown the brutal way in which Muslim countries treatedtheir Jewish population - a 1400-year-long crime against humanity,in fact.

- Philo-Semite

March 12, 2009 at 7:45pm