Over at Commentary, Noah Pollack is engaged in his usual schtick of labeling anyone to the left of Bibi Netanyahu as "anti-Israel." His target this morning is J Street, the pro-Israel, pro-peace group begun by notorious anti-Semites like Jeremy Ben Ami, the former Clinton adviser whose father fought alongside Menachem Begin, and Daniel Levy, a former adviser to Ehud Barak who served in the Israeli Defense Forces. But to hear Pollack tell it, Levy might as well have penned The Protocols of the Elders of Zion himself. "It is time that thinking people started calling J Street what it actually is," says Pollack. "An anti-Israel group." That will come as a surprise to Amos Lapidot, the former commander of the Israeli Air Force, and Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, chief of staff to the Israeli Defense Forces, and Amram Mitzna, the former chair of Israeli Labor Party, and in fact, to all these prominent Israeli politicians and military leaders who support J Street's mission and are, apparently, working for Israel's destruction. Pollack is silent as to whether they actively desire the extermination of the state of Israel or have simply been duped into it, but hopefully he'll clarify that point soon. It's a time-honored tactic of American Likudniks to erect a fierce binary around Israel's actions. Either you support the settlements, and the bombing in Gaza, and Israel's proposed budget for fiscal year 5768, or you're "anti-Israel." There's even a saying: "Israel, right or wrong." If the argument succeeds, two things happen. The first is that the action in question has more supporters. This is the point of the binary: Some who might otherwise disagree are convinced that the question is their support for Israel, and they answer in the affirmative, and cut their criticisms. The second is that Israel has more opponents, as those who disagreed with the action are told that it is inextricable from the character of the Jewish state, and if they cannot support the endeavor, they cannot support the country. It is, of course, a false choice. In America, we know this well. Dissent is honored in our national tradition. It's honored because it's a powerful ideal, but also because it's operationally important. It serves the national interest if those who oppose the Iraq War need not commit themselves to armed revolution. Countries seek to maximize their patriots and supporters. When the conversation turns to Israel, however, a strange thing happens. Israeli hawks are so anxious that public opinion will condemn their actions that they make each and every military incursion a referendum on the Jewish state. In doing, they create a class who never considered themselves anti-Israeli, but has now been assured that that's indeed what they are. It's quite dangerous. And it's the opposite of the strategy being pursued by J Street, which seeks an inclusive definition of support for Israel, a definition that can include the Zionist conservative as well as the Jewish conservative as well as the Protestant housewife who simply desires peace. Pollack fears that effort, and rightly so. It might be good for Israel, but it's surely not good for Israel's hawks, who can no longer define the boundaries of support for Israel. But don't take my word for it, and don't take Pollack's. Check out J Street for yourself.
