Akiva Eldar vs. AIPAC and “self-loving Jews”

Posted: December 20th, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: The Settlements, the US and us | Tags: , , , , | 7 Comments »

Following House resolution 1765, which I wrote about yesterday, Haaretz’s Akiva Eldar goes after AIPAC:

The dominant view among the centrist group of the Jewish community – that “we support every Israeli government, right or wrong” – reminds one of a situation in which a parent finds out that his child is addicted to drugs and hands him his credit card.

The activists of Peace Now and the moderate group J Street, are called “self-hating Jews” by members of the Jewish establishment. People at AIPAC and their allies in Congress are, on the other hand, “self-loving Jews.” Indeed, they love themselves. Especially themselves.

Jews who truly love Israel go to synagogues in New York and tell people that if Jerusalem will not be the capital of two nations, it will never be recognized as Israel’s capital.

Jews who love themselves may know there is no two state solution without dividing Jerusalem, but they prefer to receive enthusiastic applause when making the empty declaration that “a unified Jerusalem is Israel’s capital forever.”

Read the rest here.


7 Comments on “Akiva Eldar vs. AIPAC and “self-loving Jews””

  1. 1 maayan said at 9:33 am on December 20th, 2010:

    This comment after that article is accurate:

    “Subject: Is it self-loving or self-hating to agree to Palestinian demands to control the Kotel?

    Author: James
    * 20.12.10
    * 13:24

    That’s what a unilateral Palestinian declaration of a state means. They intend to get the EU to accept 1949 armistice lines as the borders to their state. Should US Jews be supportive of that position? Should US Jews support a Palestinian state that declares itself without agreeing to peace or agreeing to end their demand to bring Palestinians into Israel from all over the world? Should US Jews agree to having the Palestinians establish facts that will assuredly result in international sanctions and boycotts of Israel? Does Eldar think it is just and right to have the world sanction Israel because it wants to assure itself that Jews have access to their holy sites in Jerusalem?”

  2. 2 Tom Mitchell said at 9:39 am on December 20th, 2010:

    This is a common phenomenon among emigre groups. Emigres tend to have a “purer” version of nationalism, less “distorted” by reality. We find this among Croatians in the United States, Irish-Americans in the American Northeast, Albanians in Europe and America, etc. Because those left behind in the old country have to live with the reality they tend to be more pragmatic and compromising.

    In the U.S. among American Jews–or more accurately among Jewish-Americans–there is a split between those who Eldar speaks about and those who are more moderate but who have other concerns. This is similar to the split in the Irish-American community. The more assimilated Irish-Americans tended to support pols in Congress like the Friends of Ireland who supported the moderate SDLP party and advocated a united Ireland only through peaceful means and an accommodation with the unionists in the meantime. The others, who were republicans who hated the British tended to support pols like Peter King the (Sinn Fein) Republican from New York. King was like the establishment Jews who liked the vicarious association with Israel and wanted a safe source of political support.

  3. 3 maayan said at 3:48 pm on December 20th, 2010:

    But what does this have to do with being more pragmatic and compromising? This was about preventing unilateral steps by the Palestinians that would not advance peace even a tiny bit, but would create significant damage to Israel’s holiest Jewish sites.

    Besides, Eldar is blaming the Jooooooooos, but in fact the vote was 435-0, so apparently lots of non-Jews felt strongly about this issue.

    Eldar’s article tries to make a point that isn’t there in the first place and even if it existed, would be wrong.

  4. 4 Tom Mitchell said at 3:53 pm on December 20th, 2010:

    Ma’ayan,

    Letting the PA declare a state that wins wide recognition internationally may give the Palestinians some incentive to negotiate more rationally and examine how the refugee issue might be addressed without Israel granting an automatic right of return. The United States still retains a veto in the UN Security Council and so can prevent any international action that goes against Israel’s most basic interests. Israel would also be free to raise the issue of Jewish refugees from Arab countries and their rights to property compensation in any compensation discussions.

    As far as Palestinians thinking that Jews should be denied access to Jewish holy sites, I find this to be no more irrational and objectionable than the belief that Jews have a right of return to homes before 1948 while Arabs don’t. Or is nationalism only permissible when it is one’s own nation that is practicing it?

  5. 5 Yisrael Medad said at 10:22 pm on December 20th, 2010:

    I don’t think you can find “esdtablishment Jews” expressing this opinion you ascribe to therm: “The activists of Peace Now and the moderate group J Street, are called “self-hating Jews” by members of the Jewish establishment.”. Maybe people lie me, but establishment Jews are much much center/center-Left – Liberal which is why J Street even manages to get by otherwise the group would have been decimated already. Members of local community councils, etc. are also of that stripe. Stop whining.

  6. 6 noam said at 4:47 am on December 21st, 2010:

    Maayan – the vote was passed without objection, but not everyone voted for it (see my previous post).

  7. 7 maayan said at 8:25 am on December 22nd, 2010:

    Noam, so what? 435-0.

    Tom says: “As far as Palestinians thinking that Jews should be denied access to Jewish holy sites, I find this to be no more irrational and objectionable than the belief that Jews have a right of return to homes before 1948 while Arabs don’t. Or is nationalism only permissible when it is one’s own nation that is practicing it?”

    Sorry, Tom, two different things.