The flap over Rep. Jim Moran's remarks about AIPAC, Israel, and the Jewish community continues. The latest developments:*A group of 16 Jewish Democratic representatives have written a letter calling Moran's comments "irresponsible," "deeply offensive," and with "no basis in fact."
*The House Democratic leader, Steny Hoyer of Maryland, has demanded that Moran retract his remarks.
*Rep. Eric Cantor (R-7th) goes completely over the top: "I think [Moran's] remarks are anachronistic and hearken back to the day of Adolf Hitler, of the others, of 'Mein Kampf,' of . . . sources that have become reference to now -- I'm sorry to say -- a resurgent anti-Semitic sentiment worldwide."
*According to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, "Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun, hit Cantor's remarks as a 'McCarthyite attack' and 'wildly distortive' of Moran's views."
*Moran's spokesman, Austin Durrer, defended his boss: "Anyone attempting to mischaracterize his words as targeting the broader Jewish community rather than AIPAC's leadership is being purposely misleading."
For my part, as a Jewish American, as a Democrat, as a progressive, as a constituent of Jim Moran's, as a strong supporter of Israel, and as an equally strong supporter of a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, I continue to believe, as I wrote the other day, that Jim Moran's remarks in Tikkun were not anti-Semitic. Personally, I am no fan of AIPAC, but I am also no fan of those who pretend that AIPAC is all-powerful (it's not) or that there's something particularly insidious about it (there isn't, but its unfortunate pro-Republican and pro-Likud bias is as clear as day).
Having said that, I believe that AIPAC sometimes is criticized simply because it is successful. That's an extremely weak line of attack. The fact is, polls have shown for decades that Israel is widely and deeply popular among most Americans -- as the only Democracy in that part of the world, among other things.
[UPDATE: As Michael Gerson writes in today's Washington Post, "Perhaps many Americans recall that the Jews, just six decades ago, lost one-third of their number to genocide and believe that this persecuted people deserves a secure home and sanctuary. Perhaps Americans understand that anti-Semitism was the greatest source of evil in the 20th century and is not dead in this one."]
In addition, as this superb article in Slate points out, criticism of "the Israel lobby" sometimes -- as in the case of the borderline anti-Semitic and wildly biased anti-Israel authors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt -- represents "A failure to connect with the historical experience of Jews that motivates their support of Israel. A failure to empathize with the real danger the 6 million Jews of Israel face: the threat of a second Holocaust." I strongly recommend that you read the entire Slate article, one of the best I've ever seen on this subject.
Just to reiterate, I have no evidence to believe that Jim Moran's latest remarks were intended as anything but an attack against AIPAC. I can't look into Jim Moran's heart and soul, as George W. Bush says he's able to do with foreign leaders like Vladimir Putin, but I do not see his latest remarks in a progressive Jewish magazine as evidence for anti-Semitism on his part.
P.S. Here's my personal litmus test for whether somebody is anti-Semitic: do they ONLY criticize Israel and the Jews, never the other side; do they focus obsessively on Israel's shortcomings, mistakes, or supposed evils; do they use hyperbolic language when discussing Israel and the pro-Israel lobby in America; do they distort and/or ignore history? The more affirmative answers to these questions, the greater the chance the person is anti-Semitic.
[UPDATE #2: Michael Gerson has a powerful column in today's Washington Post entitled, "Seeds of Anti-Semitism". Gerson writes that "Every generation has seen accusations that Jews have dual loyalties, promote war and secretly control political structures." And, he concludes, "These academics [Stephen Walt of Harvard and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago] may not follow their claims all the way to anti-Semitism. But this is the way it begins. This is the way it always begins."]
As to where I stand: I support Israel's right to exist within its pre-1967 borders. It's clear to see that the occupied territories have become more trouble than they're worth. It's also notable that many of the settlers themselves are not from Israel itself (though some no doubt have relatives there), but are Americans (and possibly some Europeans) living there in tents as a political statement. As a progressive, I align myself with Israeli Labour, the main progressive party over there, which supports the peace process while Likud (led by the abomidable Netenyahu, Israel's answer to Tom DeLay/Rick Sanitarium/etc) has tried to sabotage it every step of the way. Ehud Barak's comeback gives me some hope because he's the only major Israeli politician who is not a knucklehead. While I do not believe that the 2000 proposed treaty was all that "generous" to the Palestinians, I do believe that Barak's intentions were sincere and that the agreement could have served as a building block.
BTW, Lowell, what are your thoughts on Barak's comeback? Good? Bad?
The real travesty in my view, is that there isn't a sufficient counterbalance to the hardline Likud view in the U.S. Those who suggest that there are other approaches invariably are labeled as anti-Semitic, or self-hating Jews. Within Israel itself the debate is much more open and honest.
This hardline approach to dialogue itself will breed its own variety of suspicions and resentments. I think it's important to draw distinctions between people like Rep. Moran and David Duke. It's dangerous enough to punish people for speaking their mind -- especially in this culture. However, it is even worse to punish someone for speaking the truth. What Rep. Moran said in the Tikkun article -- which I thought was fairly mild and sufficiently qualified -- may not have been pleasant, but it is true.
No contest there...