This is a terrible story. It appears in The Independent, on page one. The Independent is about as mainstream a British paper as you'll find anywhere. In the UK, it it respected the way the New York Times or Washington Post is respected here. In other words, it is an establishment newspaper and a great one (better, I think, than any here).

I point this out to note that there is no way a story like this would appear in a mainstream newspaper here. There is too much intimidation (advertising!). But in Britain -- no powerful lobby -- you can read whatever you want. Same in Israel, no lobby, read whatever you like (although the crazy lobby group CAMERA did announce that it will start "monitoring" the Israeli media too, from its offices here!).

Read more »

It's been a long time since I've seen young Jews optimistic about anything related to Israel.

I'm not talking about the college activists who, shocked at the anti-Israel sentiment on campus, find themselves joining up with conservative mainstream Jewish organizations to defend Israel to their skeptical peers. Those kids have always been around. I know. I was once one of the best-known campus activists for Israel, battling late 60's and 70's anti-Israel radicals almost non-stop.

And I give those kids credit. It's hard work but utterly ineffective because you can't defend the occupation and sell Israel at the same time. The only message that works is "Israel, yes. Two-states, yes. Occupation, no." But the mainstream organizations prefer losing the battle to supporting pro-Israel, pro-peace activism. And so they are losing the campus battle big time.

But I'm talking about young opinion leaders who are turned off by the occupation and identify Israel with settlers there and neoconservatives like Feith, Perle, and Krauthammer here. They hate the paranoid style in which all dissent from the status quo is deemed anti-Israel or anti-Semitic and, generally, have no use for the mindless emotionalism and ethnic sentimentality that characterize so much of the organized pro-Israel community.

Read more »

This has been talked about for years. But today the "J Street Project" is being rolled out.

It's purpose is to raise political money for candidates who manifest their support for Israel not by assiduously, devotedly, and energetically defending the status quo but by supporting the two-state solution.

This is good news. There are several good groups in the business of educating, advocating and lobbying for the two-state solution. But, until now, none has directly got involved in raising campaign funds to promote peace and security for Israel and the Palestinians. (By law, these organizations cannot do that).

But that it what J Street will be doing.

At this point, who knows if it will succeed. It is up against perhaps the most powerful foreign policy lobby in the country, one that freely exercises that power to keep Congress and the executive branch in line. (Also the media, former Presidents, professors, and dog catchers).

But J Street sees an opening. Most Americans and most Jewish Americans support the two state solution and are tired of having a Likud-oriented lobby speaking in their name.

Let's see what happens but I think this could be big.

Here is the NPR report on J Street from this morning. and Spencer Ackerman in The Washington Independent.

It is amazing that right-wing Israelis and their American enablers have managed to convince even a single person that West Bank settlements are not at the root of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Think about it. The conflict is about who will ultimately control the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. It is no longer about Israel's right to the 78 percent of historic Palestine that is pre-'67 Israel; the PLO conceded Israel's right to statehood in that land 20 years ago and has never backed away from that concession. It is no longer about whether the Palestinians are entitled to a state because Israel conceded that the Palestinians have that right 15 years ago and have never backed away from that concession. It is not about each people's right to live in security (free from terrorism and other military threats) because the two sides have agreed to that principle a half-dozen times since the Oslo agreement was signed.

Read more »