That's part of the problem. The viewpoint of the majority of American Jews is largely muzzled in the press.

A small part of the problem is not nearly enough Jews stand up and vocally oppose the Dershowitz's and Foxman's, and perhaps non-Zionist TV producers and news editors are afraid of being called anti-Semitic.

We know that any questioning of Israel is accompanied by thousands of angry e-mails from pro-Zionists, be they Jewish or Christian. Until regular Jews (and their friends, to help with numbers) make it perfectly clear that they encourage criticism of Israel, and until they denounce Dershowitz for what he is, things will never change.

The problem is that good people have less stomach for a fight than... those other people.

Was there a large Jewish movement to support Finkelstein when he blazed the trail for this week's conversation?

This is why Chomsky is right: Zionism and US Imperialism in the ME coincide in interest. The illegitimate Sunni Kings and Pharoah owe their survival to the Empire and "defending Israel" empowers the Empire to interfere.

Here's the deal as I see it: Organization. More to the point: Self-identified Jewish organization. Most of the "courageous dissidents"--though not all--aren't so identified.

Here's Weiss' bio from his blog:

"I'm Philip Weiss. I'm 52 and live in New York state. This blog is here because of 9/11, Iraq, and my progressive Jewish background. I'm interested in: ideas, books, Jewish identity, pluralism, the political and nationalist claims on American Jews by Israel, American foreign policy, globalization, the struggle within Islam... And I'm a luftmensch. That's Yiddish for a woolgatherer. Though it's not a culturally-bound concept. There are lots of us everywhere. Sometimes we have good ideas."

Here's what I get from this: Phil knows he's a Jew and I suspect he's proud of the good parts of that heritage. He might have been bar mitzvahed. He has a little, or maybe a lot, of Yiddish. Perhaps he has some Hebrew as well. But does he belong to a synagogue? Does he belong to a Jewish community center? Is he a member of the Workman's Circle?

Has he in any way attached himself to "the Jewish community"?

Or is he a progressive who happens to be a Jew and takes some interest in that identity? If this is the case--and I don't know that it is in his case, but is in many other cases I submit--then he will have little impact on "the Jewish community." Though the terms and details are completely different, he becomes sort of like a lapsed Catholic. Yes; it's part of his identity and he might cherish it; but the archdiocese doesn't really care what he thinks and his voice, though loud in the blogosphere and insightful and persuasive to some, isn't going to sway a lot of Catholics for whom being Catholic is an important part of their lives.

It isn't so much that "Catholics" don't care what he says. It's that he leads his life apart from the Catholic community and so he just isn't going to have much of an impact on the Catholic community.

IOW, simply being Jewish and raising your voice is not enough. If you want to raise your voice AS A JEW then you have to be a part of the Jewish community in some fashion.

Now there are Jews who have and are doing that. There have been Jewish organizations that are "Jewishly progressive" for some time. Jeremy mentions them. Their numbers are growing. I've been a member of one or two. But the long-standing members of the Jewish establishment tend to be on the conservative side, especially when it comes to Israel and anything that feels like it might compromise any Jew's safety anywhere in the world.

Some of this comes, I suspect, from guilt at not having done enough during WWII to save their European brethren. In some reports, the Jewish establishment didn't press the case for "saving the Jews" because they didn't want to attract blow back from other Americans for trying to turn the US involvement in the war into a "war for the Jews." You can see this sentiment in the America First Committee and some of what Lindbergh said at the time.

Interesting post. A few comments and questions:

YBD: J-Street's claim to "represent the majority of American Jewry" is disengenuous. The majority of American Jews don't really know much about Israel. Their views are formed by things like the media's portrayal of Israel which is frequently (usually?) negative, (e.g. "everyone knows about the crimes the settler-thugs are committing", although in reality hardly any of these "well-known" cases have ever really been documented or had enough evidence to lead to prosecution), or "everyone knows what the terms of the future agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is, it is just a matter of getting courageous leaders to sign of on them", when in reality, as Olmert himself has stated, in addition to "progressive"-Osloid Yossi Alpher has stated, there is no agreement on anything.

Tintin: Lot here. I think it's safe to say that one can't judge the validity of ANY poll unless one takes a look at questions and methodology, sampling. Doing so in this format is silly. So I think it's wise to remain agnostic on polls.

As to your characterization of the MSM press, it generally portrays a favorable image of Israel. Of course, the devil lives in the word "generally." But certainly, reading WaPo, I don't see any huge bias against Israel.

As a result, most American Jews rely on the Israeli government's judgement about what is best for Israel's security and national interests. AIPAC has generally represented these over the years, or at least is viewed as doing this by most American Jews. AIPAC supports the so-called "2-state solution". HOWEVER, what J-Street wants goes much further, they want Israel to be pressured, bullied, threatened or otherwise coerced into carrying out policies that could threaten the security of the state and to give up vital interests "all for its own good", supposedly.

Tintin: Pressured, bullied, threatened or coerced are one-dimensional words. There is a world that exists within the terms diplomacy and negotiation that these harsher words can't touch. That said, the concentration-camp-style conditions in Gaza are intolerable from a humanitarian standpoint. I think--I hope-- you would agree. Given that the US provides tremendous financial support to Israel and the Palestinians, it is most certainly in the US's "interests" to see that problem resolved somehow. It's hard to imagine that happening without all parties in one room and negotiating for as long as it takes.

J-Street then cooked up a misleading poll with convoluted leading questions which were meant to give the impression that most American Jews want to divide (i.e. destroy) Jerusalem, and to create a Palestinian state that would threaten Israel's security if not it's very existence.

Tintin: See comment above. Your last phrase is silly. In no way would J Street want to publish findings that show that a majority of American Jews want Israel's security or existence threatened. That would appear to be YOUR add-on and your assessment of actions American Jews may support. I like your thought about miracles and Israel: It doesn't just apply to Israel's having come into existence; it also applies to her achieving peace with her Arab neighbors.

There is a wide gulf between asking someone "would you favor the creation of a Palestinian state that would live in peace with Israel"? and "would you favor the creation of a Palestinian state that after its creation would maintain a state of cold or hot hostility with Israel and would maintain irredentist claims against Israeli territory". Or asking "do you favor Israeli 'sharing' Jerusalem with the Arabs in peace" will give very different results than "do you favor dividing Jerusalem knowing that it is very likely that Arab areas in the city would be used by gunmen to fire into Jewish Areas, and that anti-sniper walls and checkpoints would have to be set up in the center of the city with long waits to cross over from one side to the other and that Jewish holy places would find visitors coming under attack from hostile forces"?

Tintin: Yes, indeed. And your questions are tendentious in the EXTREME. They aren't just leading, they have arrived. Who would possibly answer yes to your version of the questions? If no Jew would, what would be the point of asking those questions? Here again, you are assuming what the results of certain actions will be based on some historical precedent. But Israel herself is historically improbable in the extreme. I would urge you not to freeze history or invoke a law of eternal return in which Jews and Israel are condemned to keep repeating the past. Once real negotiations begin, all kinds of safeguards can be built in to prevent some of the outcomes you fear.

Moreover, if real peace is achieved, the Palestinians themselves have something to lose by screwing it up with violence. And if, in fact, it appears clear that they are simply interested in re-fighting 1948, then I think Israel would be justified, or forced, to abandon negotiation and simply use force to combat force. No one is asking her to disarm.

J-Street cooked up a misleading poll that wrongly claims that the "majority" of American Jews support their "pressure Israel for its own good" and that Israeli concessions would bring the Arabs to live in peace with Israel when in fact the opposite has happened.

Tintin: I've commented on this already. This is clearly your judgement, but it's not at all clear to me that it is correct.

In actuality, the majority of American Jews who are actively involved in Israel, i.e. who make substantial financial contributions, who visit frequently, who send their children to study or work for extended periods of time, are actually "Right-wing". They are the ones who care most about Israel and it is logical that American Jewish organizations who reflect their views are going to have different views than J-Street.

Tintin: I think there is some truth to this. I think progressive Jews should be more involved with Israel.

A large majority of Americans (the general public) view Israel as a natural ally of the US. They do not view the Palestinian Authority the same way. Thus, if J-Street comes to a Congressman and says "we want you to support threats against Israel that if they don't carry out some major concession that we 'progressives' want, punitive sanctions will be carried out against them 'for their own good'", the Congressman is going to have to ask himself how his contituents are going like seeing an American ally bullied.

Tintin: Again, "bullied" is the wrong word and is tendentious. However, given that Israel gets a huge amount of American aid, don't you think it's reasonable that America have some say in how her money is used? I mean, I think anyone would consider this idea reasonable, don't you? You can't really expect anyone to give anyone else money and not be concerned with how it's used, can you? If I give my brother money, and he goes out and buys heroin or a gun, or does something awful with the money--it's not my fault, but I might not want to keep giving him money, or as much money. Or I might want to attach strings to the money. Who could argue with that? And if my brother disagrees with my assessment of his actions, it's also reasonable for me say, "Well, you're entitled to your views, but it's also my money, and I don't want to support your heroin habit." Again, this strikes me as entirely reasonable and even the responsible thing for me to do. So, for example, since Israel had agreed to halt the settlement, it would be reasonable for the US to hold Israel to that end of the bargain as it also held the Palestinians to their end--that seems reasonable, too, doesn't it?

President Bush I did this . He was defeated for reelection and Clinton and Perot criticized him for treating an ally in such a way.

Tintin: I don't know about what Bush I did in any detail, but Clinton and Perot were political opponents and, I'm sure, used the situation for political gain.

Thus, I believe J-Street is not only NOT representative of American Jewry, but Congress will not be able to understand what it is they really want from them.

Tintin: We will see, I guess. If they don't understand, they can ask for clarification.