Too true. Which is why the most important thing to understand about Levy, Beilin, and J Street is that the blood-soaked failure of their diplomatic project — Olso — earned their complete rejection by Israeli voters. Today, Yossi Beilin’s Meretz Party holds three seats in the Knesset, and the ideas on which Meretz was founded hold the imaginations of a marginal coterie of Jewish leftists represented by the likes of Daniel Levy, an immigrant to Israel who prefers to spend his time in America telling audiences what a bunch of fools and failures his countrymen are.

Israel’s rejection of Beilinism has caused Levy to reject Israel in kind, which is why he has grown more and more open about his loathing of Israeli democracy itself.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/pollak/127982

I appreciate Josh Marshall's common sense voice, in general, and on this matter particularly. As an ambassador, Oren is like John Bolton, minus the flavor saver.

Rep. Mike Castle is not the only lawmaker to run from the J Street conference. Ben Smith reports that New York Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer are also bugging out
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/129282

I'm confused. Josh seems to be suggesting that Oren should reconsider the refusal to attend the J Street event. But in a previous paragraph he says the Oren is doing just that.

I suspect that Oren probably regrets the "anti-Israel" label as excessive and unnecessarily provocative. But it's also possible that there are different ways of interpreting that label. Anti-Israel can mean someone who wishes harm to Israel or, in the more extreme cases, didn't exist altogether. Only the most rabid right wing fanatic would accuse J Street of wishing actual harm on Israel.

But anti-Israel can also be interpreted to mean biased against Israel. That is, to believe that Israel deserves the lion's share of blame for the conflict itself and its perpetuation. Furthermore, solving the conflict is largely within Israel's power because peace is largely a function of Israeli concessions. In this sense, J Street, MJ Rosenberg and perhaps even Josh Marshall are, to a greater or lesser extent, anti-Israel. If you sit them down for a long conversation, they will probably admit that in fact things are not so black and white. But in their public writings, there is always the presumption of Israeli guilt. They highlight the mistakes Israel makes while ignoring or glossing over the Arabs. They tend to treat the Palestinians as passive observers rather than active players in the drama, thus focusing almost exclusively on whether this or that Israeli action will lead towards or away from peace while largely ignoring Palestinian developments.

If you interpret it this way, it becomes a bit of a stretch to say that Oren just dissed a sizable chunk of American Jewry because I doubt that too many Jews share this reflexive bias against Israel. Most Jews remain, if anything, reflexively biased the other way and tend to downplay Israel's faults and mistakes. This is what makes the emergence of J Street interesting. MJ and others would have you believe that this represents some sort of generational shift and that among the younger generation of Jews, J Street's focus on the Israeli occupation and its critical eye towards Israel in general will strike a chord. We'll have to see of course, but my view is that this is overdone. Most engaged Jews, young or old, know enough to understand that a singular focus on the occupation isn't fair.

This is encouraging, and Naomi Klein is one of my favorite writers, but I don't see how boycotts and sanctions against Israel are good ideas. Such economic intimidation impacts those most vulnerable in any society, and, in a practical sense, don't work. Why should Israel's poor be sacrificed to the missteps of a powerful American interest group, to AIPAC and the other components of the Israel Lobby? Blunting its influence here in the U.S. is the key, and J Street has the right idea. Apparently, its members have already made the crucial breakthrough: They refuse to be cowed by the "anti-Israel" and "self-hating Jew" guilt trip. My gentile vote: Don't overreach.

To a bemused (Jewish)observer from Europe, your internecine spat seems to sort of ignore the fact that there are 300 million non-Jewish Americans who, I guess, have no interest whatsoever in this discussion/ argument about the diplomatic representative of a state on the Mediterranean.

Michael Oren is obviously not fit for purpose, but the average American wants to know about his job and his health - not the machinations of the Israeli Foreign Ministry.

Oren is the representative of a foreign state charged with carrying out the interests of that foreign state. He is not in America for the good of Americans.

If only Jewish Americans were more interested in America, where they grew up and received their education and made their living, rather than in Israel which takes but does not give - then there might be peace in the Middle East and those billions of dollars could stay 'at home' in America, to help pay for schools and medical treatment for those unable to afford the fees.

I know it's pretty bloody obvious - because my sons tell me so..

J street schedule of events.

8:00 AM: Should Israel join the Arab League? How a Jewish demographic majority in Palestine hinders Israel's regional diplomacy.
Daniel Levy

9:00 AM: Panel discussion on Jews and the Hajj. Why don't more Jews make the pilgramage to Mecca?
Rabbi Michael Lerner
Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi
Farfur the Hamas Bunny (invited)

10:30 AM: The Octopus and its tentacles: Jeffrey Goldberg's blog silences us all.
Stephen Walt

12:00: Why don't more pro-Israel groups boycott Israel?
Naomi Klein

Bonus Panel: 4:00 PM: What about the American occupation? Perspectives on Palestine from Native America.
Leonard Peltier (by video)
Ward Churchill
John Echohawk

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/10/obtained_j_street_conference_s.asp

DUMB TROLL ALERT!!!!: var. "spider"

your casual use of "subhuman" really reveals you to be the moral equivalent of something I don't think you'd like the proper term for

Ah, I got a fool to bite. And here I was beginning to think all that taunting was going to waste. The use of the term was anything but casual, by the way.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/15/josh_marshall_says_israel_should_recall_ambassador/index.php#comment-3635288

Save and bookmark the above.

When a poster outs itself as a troll, that's a very good thing.

Those continuing to engage said moron should do so with the full understanding that they are pissing into the wind while the object of outrage is happily wanking away.

Actually, Spider, Dave was specifically referring to Rabin's assassins and those who cheered them on.

Are all words banned if they were once used in an anti-semitic context. To insist that subhuman is a label for Jews is to let the Nazis write your dictionary.

I'd call Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh subhuman but I don't mean it literally because they stand on two feet and have opposable thumbs.

Subhuman (or its German equivalent) only means Jews in the eyes of anti-semites. Rabins killers were subhuman. Yigal Amir, the assassin. actually looks like a Simian Seinfeld.