Israel Matzav

Dershowitz v. Ben Ami

Alan Dershowitz debated J Street's Jeremy Ben Ami in Stamford, Connecticut on Thursday night. The debate is nearly two hours long, and I have not yet listened to it, but from reading Joshua Hammerman's summary, it sounds like a lot of people are trying to put helpful words into Ben Ami's mouth that Ben Ami cannot and will not say. (I'll have the audio for you at the end).

What is sad is that Dershowitz and Ben Ami agree on so many of the important issues, including settlements and the security fence (though perhaps not the precise location). But they couldn't get beyond that to forge a common message. As J-Street continues to evolve, I hope it will find ways to feel less constrained about the pro-Israel part - it needs to become unabashedly pro-Israel, while at the same time continuing to play the role of Nathan the prophet. Nathan did, after all, reside close to the palace.

Ben Ami did not make reference to the impressive number of rabbis and cantors who have joined its very large rabbinic cabinet (including me). That surprised me. It shows that there is something about his message that is resonating well beyond the halls of Yale and Berkeley. Say what you will about rabbis, we're not all idiots. We, like many others, are attracted to that moral message. But it can not become a message of moral equivalence. Dershowitz hammered home the moral equivalence thing, that Israel has made enormous risks and sacrifices and the Palestinians have not responded in kind. Arafat blew it at Camp David in refusing the Clinton/ Barak offer. (One of Dershowitz's best lines was when he said that Yasser Arafat died an untimely death - four years too late). Ben Ami's retort was that the blame game does no good, that the two narratives are both filled with suffering and pain. Both points are well taken.

On Monday I attended a regional AIPAC event. Dore Gold spoke, eloquently and persuasively, about Israel's security needs - specifically how any peace plan must include an Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley. I would love to see J-Street acknowledge that need more clearly. I sense that they agree, but I didn't really hear that concern tonight. I didn't hear the existential ache about Iran from Ben Ami tonight either. The question as to whether resolving the Israel-Palestinian matter would help neutralize the Iranian threat was one where both made good arguments. The fact is, we don't know.

The fact is that J Street isn't going to acknowledge any of the things that Hammerman wants them to acknowledge because they don't believe them. If they did, it would have been very easy to acknowledge them long ago. And we may not know with 100% certainty, but I'd say we know with 99.9% certainty that solving the 'Palestinian problem' is not going to solve Iran or anything else in this region.

Are there any Orthodox rabbis on the J Street rabbinic advisory board? (I don't know the American Jewish community well enough to pick out names anymore, but I'm willing to bet that I won't need my second hand to count them on my fingers).

In the part that I didn't quote, Hammerman notes that someone asked Dore Gold why Netanyahu can't just extend the 'settlement freeze' for 'two crummy more months.' And then what? And why couldn't Abu Bluff come to the table for the first nine months that the 'settlement freeze' was in effect? It's clear that Hammerman has never heard of what we call 'shitat ha'salami' - you slice off a slice of salami, and then another, and then another until there's nothing left. At some point you have to say enough is enough. Most Israelis have reached that point. And thank God that American Liberals don't vote here to force us into cutting off another slice.

Here's the audio.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:28 PM