Yes, well this is hardly the first time Marty Peretz has said wildly off base, over-the-top things on this matter.

Good for you for working to undo the damage that, ridiculously, given his extreme views on this issue, Marty Peretz was able to inflict in the short run on Malley. He speaks for a minority of Jewish Americans on this, certainly not this one. Long ago he lost all credibility on this issue with me. But it is a boisterous, sometimes unscrupulous, and unfortunately influential minority. Those who think the US needs to be in a different place on I-P must oppose it vigorously and you are doing that.

Right on point.

There are so many real issues for candidates to debate when it comes to the Middle East: What are the consequences of the current US-Israel relationship in the broader Middle East? How would you pursue Peace? Does the special relationship with Israel allow you, as President, to suggest Israel make tough decisions like removing settlements?

These are valid points for a foreign policy discussion. Those who are afraid of what the right answer might be, avoid the debate with far fetched stories and slanderous accusations.

Dear MJ...great post.

Also wanted to thank for your IPF piece called The Next War.

The solution always seems to near...and yet so far away.

So what is the evidence that Malley is anti-Israel?

Thanks, Richard. It is definitely analogous. My brother-in-law is Cuban-American so I know that story first hand.
But read this settler dude, tnathan. He lives here but his heart lies in some West Bank settlement. He thinks, votes, lives and breathes as if America is his exile. But it does not stop him from trying to influence events here to favor settlements, etc.

My brother-in-law is a proud Viet veteran, a 9/11 firefighter first responder at the WTC, as patriotic as you can be (he had to retire from the FDNY as a result of the weeks he spent nonstop at the pile). But he defies the rightwing of his community, goes to Cuba, and opposes the embargo.

Sadly he is also a Republican!

My point though is that like most Cuban Americans, his home is here. He's not returning to the island. And he does not vote based on the interests of the Cuban exile community.

99.999% of Jewish Americans are like him. The tnathans are the loudmouths, the vocal tiny minority.

MJ,

You are right. He did say that. And it's not only true, you have repeatedly said the same thing. Can you find someone who will NOT say that Jewish voters (actually donors) in New York and Miami and LA etc play a big role in sustaining Mideast status quo policies.

Hold the phone. McPeak was talking about voters, not donors, actually. Please explain how the American Jewish electorate is an obstacle to the peace process when Jewish voters traditionally turn out 3-1 Democratic, including in John Kerry's 04 run that was supported by McPeak?

Thanks, MJ, for a good post. It is absolutely amazing to me that, as you point out, arguments made every day in Israel cannot be made here because they do not toe the party line.

MJ I always appreciate your posts and you've been very enlightening as to the backstory as to much of what is reported in the MSM. I've been meaing to ask you about your thoughts on the connection between the donor letter, the Clinton campaign stoking the Wright story, and the worrisome percentage of Democrats who report they won't vote for the other candidate. It does seem to me there is a connection in that at least some of the donors are foreign policy neocons first and domestic liberals second. Take Haim Saban, for instance, one of the signers of the letter and a major Clinton supporter. It does seem to me, based on his Wikipeida article and his 2006 interview, that his choices would be Clinton first, McCain second, and Obama never. The critical issue is not the specifics of Obama's Israel policy as such but his general stance of reconciliation. Saban, as I read him, is opposed to the overall message. Therefore, from his perspective, the logical strategy would be to destroy Obama as a viable candidate. If Clinton wins the nomination as a result, that's great. If Obama loses the general that's great too. Obviously, the Clintons are subject to a multitude of internal and external pushes and pulls, but it does seem logical to me that at least some of their supporters would genuinely rather see McCain as president than Obama, based on the foreign policy issue.
Do you have any thoughts on this?

tnathan, it isn't my idea, it originated with Izzy Stone, the Journalist who wrote the series in Pall Mall titled, "Underground to Palestine" published over a number of months in 1947. He republished it as a book, and spoke about it on many occassions over the years, except never in a Jewish Institutional Setting.

So if you want to know what he meant, get his early book, and then read through his later commentaries on the ideas.

I only offer it as something that will get folk off the treadwheel of useless passionate argument that goes nowhere. Perhaps someone else can come up with yet another idea that would break up a frozen discourse.

And yea, Switzerland is interesting. Very Rich, very long history of protecting both group and individual rights, Four languages, the way I count them, eight religions, and no war for hundreds of years. There are lots of good books on Switzerland -- though some wags comment on the peace and security they enjoy, and remind that their great contribution to the world was watches that work and the cookoo clock.

I was very upset last week with the reporting of the Argument about the 2nd Amendment before the Supreme Court that no one mentioned the fact that the Swiss Militia was actually the model our founding fathers studied when they wrote that confounded 2nd Amendment.

MJ:

I value your posts to TPM and agree with much of what you write. However, while I agree with the following paragraph, I take exception with the last clause of its last sentence:

"This is absurd. It is also, as the phrase goes, 'bad for the Jews.' Most of us are liberals, Democrats, support a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and are not racist against Arabs, African-Americans or anybody else. We are the segment of the American population which, according to the polls, are most against the Iraq war and any attack on Iran. We venerate the memory of Rabin and have no use for Barak or Netanyahu."

Though Barak made mistakes as prime minister and some would say continues to do so today, he did try to negotiate a deal with the Palestinians in 2000. Making him Netanyahu's equivalent is unfair. I think liberal Democratic Jews in America, at least those who take the time to be informed about Israel, would support Barak and the Israeli Labor Party and see a real difference between him and Netanyahu.

Malley's crime against the forces pushing for West Bank Jewish settlements was very serious. He helped pop Barak's lie that there was no one to talk to. This has been since the collapse of Camp David talks the number one argument for maintaining the West Bank settlements. That is the only defense that the settler's defenders in this country can muster.

The lobby is now going to make it clear that Malley will never again have a high government position. He will be the example to other aspiring government officials that talking out of turn will have dire consequences.

Now the only question remains will the threat work? Does anyone seriously believe that say an Obama administration could afford to appoint him to any position?

Sure, some of the supporters of Israel go over the top. I'm not a fan of Martin Peretz.

But I see little evidence for the proposition that anyone who criticizes Israel is out of a job. For one example, go to most campuses today, and it is the anti-Israel voices that dominate.

It is troubling to hear people try to blame the Jews/Israel without context and often without limits. The idea that "rich Jews" are pushing Hillary to trash Obama is silly, but apparently has some traction here. The idea that the Jewish vote/donors control the Dems is also worrisome and false, so statements to that effect should be criticized.

The biggest supporters of Israel since the 1970's (remember "Zionism is Racism"? aka, everyone by you gets a homeland) has been the from the Christian largely Republican side. Bashing Dershowitz (who is no worse than a mixed bag) is almost irrelevant in political terms.

Thanks. I almost always agree with your analysis, M.J. I wonder why we can't hear more from American Jews who recognize a little more nuance in the Israel/Palestine situation than say AIPAC does?

I look forward to the day when Congress can have a real conversation about it, but it won't happen until the American Jewish community signals to them that it is okay to do so. As long as AIPAC and Dershowitz remain the overwhelming public voice of American Jewry, policy makers won't feel comfortable broadening the discourse.

I hope that more progressive Jewish voices can start muscling in. When something like this McPeak situation comes up, it needs to be Jewish pundits on TV making it clear that they don't find it offensive, and that they may even agree with some of McPeak's points.

Outside of the progressive community, which visits sites like this one, I would dare say that much of gentile America doesn't even know that there is disagreement in the Jewish community on our Israel policy.