MJ Rosenberg

At this point, it is still not clear who will be appointed Secretary of Defense. I continue to believe that former Senator Chuck Hagel will not get the job because President Obama has never said “no” to the lobby about anything. And the lobby (whether you call it the Israel Lobby or the Jewish Lobby) has never been as united about any internal U.S. matter as it is about stopping Hagel. My guess is that Obama will choose former Pentagon official, Michele Flournoy, in the hope that the excitement about a woman as Defense secretary will make observers forget that she only got the appointment because Obama was afraid to take on AIPAC.

Nonetheless, presidential rejection of Hagel will not represent victory for the lobby because, as never before, its behind-the-scenes machinations have been exposed by virtually ever major news outlet.

The lobby hates that kind of exposure more than almost anything. As former (and indicted, although not tried, under the Espionage Act) AIPAC official Steve Rosen wrote me in 1982: “A lobby is a nightflower. It thrives in the dark and shrivels and dies in the daylight.”

The Hagel controversy has certainly provided plenty of that deadly light.

The best sign that the lobby is frightened by it came from a hysterical statement issued by David Harris, president of the American Jewish Committee in response to an op-ed in the New York Times by long-time and highly-respected New York Jewish Week writer, Jim Besser. Besser criticized mainstream “pro-Israel” organizations for being hijacked by extremist groups, using the wall-to-wall anti-Hagel opposition as proof:

Today mainstream Jewish groups, including the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee, are either silent about the mounting controversy or offering cautious support for those who want to kill Mr. Hagel’s nomination. They have been driven into silence and submission by a radical fringe that in no way represents the American Jewish mainstream.

Groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee were created to foster strong American-Israeli ties and to promote the idea that… Israel is a critical American ally in an undemocratic region

But as the debate over the best route to peace for the Jewish state has become more bitterly polarized, groups like Aipac, the A.D.L. and the A.J.C. have undercut and obscured that message by refusing to distance themselves from extremists.

Intimidated by pro-settler zealots, right-wing donors and those who liken the slightest criticism of Israeli policy to Israel-bashing (or even anti-Semitism), pro-Israel leaders are increasingly allowing the fringes of their movement to set the pro-Israel agenda in Washington.

The response from David Harris was not unexpected as the A.J.C. under his leadership has been transformed from a moderate and rather starchy institution into one of the most stridently paranoid Jewish organizations. Nonetheless, the language was over-the-top even for Harris. Read Phil Weiss on the Harris statement although here is my favorite part of Harris’ jeremiad:

Decision-making and direction are determined by AJC’s Board of Governors through discussion and debate, involving close cooperation between lay leadership and staff. We welcome different points of view among our leaders and outside speakers who inform our thinking, a long-standing hallmark of AJC.

Third, our stance on Israel-related issues is staunchly centrist and non-ideological. An incredibly long paper and voice trail underscores that point, as do the daily examples of our diplomatic and political advocacy.

We fully support Israel’s right to exist free of boycotts, divestment and sanctions, and the moral and political hypocrisy of double standards.

We steadfastly defend Israel’s right to protect itself and its citizens.

We speak up for the special U.S.-Israel link, as serving the highest interests of both nations.

And we belabor under no illusions about the immense dangers Israel faces in a hostile, arms-laden region — from Syrian chemical weapons to Iran’s nuclear ambitions; from the deadly arsenals of Hamas and Hezbollah to the growing strength of political Islam.

At the same time, we have consistently, and over a long time, advocated for a two-state Israeli-Palestinian agreement.

Precisely none of the points Harris makes are true. Decision-making at the American Jewish Committee is now entirely the province of David Harris. The organization is not right-wing or in love with Netanyahu, Harris is. In fact, it is well-known that there is growing discontent within the organization because Harris has essentially turned it into a one-man show, reflecting Harris’ paranoia and ethnic chauvinism rather than the nuanced (and often progressive) stands of the organization’s lay leadership and donors.

Even more ridiculous is Harris’ assertion that the A.J.C. supports peace, specifically the two-state solution. It doesn’t. Yes, it proclaims its support on its website but has opposed every effort to implement it, most recently opposing the Palestinian effort to achieve limited recognition by the United Nations. It supported both Gaza wars and has NEVER opposed any Israeli policy. It has supported Netanyahu over Obama every time the American president tentatively applied even the most feather-like pressure. Unless one assumes that Binyamin Netanyahu is always right about everything, one has to conclude that David Harris is simply a spokesman for his government.

But beyond all that is the larger question. What do any of the points Harris raises have to do with Chuck Hagel? Why is he foaming at the mouth about a Jewish journalist questioning of the propriety of the Israel lobby seeking to deny a president the Secretary of Defense he wants? Why doesn’t Harris explain why it is appropriate to block this appointment because a foreign government objects to it?

No, Harris doesn’t address any of this. In stead, he rails at Besser who is, luckily, retired. If he wasn’t Harris would no doubt be on the phone with his publishers seeking (probably successfully) to have him fired. For Harris and his ilk, First Amendment rights apply to everything except discussions of Israel.

So what else is new? That is how the lobby has operated for decades. But now they are exposed. Caught in the headlights. And Harris, and the others, are frightened that this exposure could lead to their replacement by a leadership cadre that is less obviously of the Israel First orientation.

Nothing Harris is doing can remotely be considered pro-Israel. Israel is in trouble. It is utterly isolated worldwide. Its support in the U.S. government is purchased with campaign donations. Its young people are leaving in ever larger numbers and young Jews abroad have abandoned the cause in droves.

The only way this situation can be changed is through peace. It’s not that hard. Polls in 1993 showed that worldwide Yitzhak Rabin was chosen as the most popular foreign leader. Netanyahu is the least popular. And what did Rabin do that was different? He simply began talking to Palestinians and held out the hope of peace with them. And he dealt with the Palestinian leadership as if it too consisted of human beings worthy of respect. (Netanyahu deals with Palestinians in the style of the Belgians in the Congo in 1958).

The hope for peace died with Rabin, largely because of his successors: most notably, Barak and Netanyahu. And David Harris and the others have helped them pound every nail into the coffin. And now they are trying to prevent a presidential appointment here in the United States out of fear that negotiations might be restarted and that their dreams of never-ending occupation will be dashed. These people are not pro-Israel. They are just avaricious (their salaries are astronomical) and paranoid.

The good news is that they finally have something to be paranoid about. They are being exposed.

The neoconservatives’ battle to sink the potential nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel has again raised the issue of the power of the Israel lobby. And it should. Hagel, as a respected former senator would be sailing to an easy confirmation, if not for the power of the Israel lobby which considers him insufficiently loyal to the policies of the Israeli government. 

The assault on Hagel is truly ugly and opposing a highly respected ex-senator and decorated war hero out of fear he won’t defer to Netanyahu is also stupid. Unlike John McCain whose war record is ambiguous, Hagel’s record was indisputably heroic. He and his brother Tom served side by side in Vietnam as infantry squad leaders and earned military decorations and honors, including two Purple Hearts. To put it bluntly, how does it look to be opposing this American war hero for being insufficiently devoted to a foreign country?

The most maddening thing is that the lobby does not speak for most Jews, not even close. The best proof of that was this year’s election results in which 70% of Jews voted for President Obama although Netanyahu and his cutouts here made clear that they preferred Romney. And, as the definitive American Jewish Committee survey demonstrated, not even the Jewish Republican vote had much, if anything, to do with Israel. Only 5% of Jews consider Israel their most important issue. Republican Jews are Republican for the same reasons other Republicans are (the economy, and other domestic issues). Overwhelmingly, Jews choose domestic issues as most important to them. Additionally the Jews who do care about Israel (a strong majority at least) support neither Netanyahu nor the occupation. The last Israeli prime minister they admired was Yitzhak Rabin.

So who and what is the lobby?

The first thing to know about it is that it is about delivering money not votes. It is irrelevant that most Jews are liberals and not Netanyahu devotees. The people with the money (i.e., the lobby) are right-wing on Israel. And it is those people (think Democrat Haim Saban and Republican Sheldon Adelson and the like) who have the clout. Not the dentist or lawyer down the street or the local Hadassah chapter.

I worked on Capitol Hill for 20 years, for five Members of Congress, and had hundreds of dealings with the lobby. Despite claims that the lobby includes Christians, that is simply not true — at least not in terms of influencing U.S. policies.

First, so-called “Christian Zionists” do not give heavily to campaigns so their support for Likud policies is both amorphous and  insignificant. Second, “Christian Zionists” are Republicans who will never support the party of GLBT rights, choice, regulations and higher taxes. Unlike the AIPAC-directed donors, they are not in play. They are just Republicans. (Even when “Christian Zionists” do contribute to campaigns, their issues are the social issues like blocking marriage equality, not supporting Israel).

Bottom line: the Israel Lobby is the Jewish Lobby. One would be hard-pressed to find a single legislator who kisses up to Netanyahu and AIPAC to please Christians. Not a single constituent organization that composes the lobby is anything but Jewish, starting with AIPAC. The others all have the word “Jewish” in their names. Who are they kidding?

That makes it critical that the overwhelming majority of Jews get the message across that the lobby does not speak for us. And that the lobby isn’t us. AIPAC, the American Jewish Committee, the Jewish Council on Public Affairs and the multi-millionaires associated with all of them constitute a lobby of a few thousand people. They are the Jewish (less than) One Percent. And that is all they speak for.

But, like the other, more famous one-percent, their voices drown the rest of us out. That is because our political system is not about votes, it is about money. Until we have public financing of campaigns (which is probably never), politicians will do what the lobby tells them to do. But, remember, it’s not the Jews, it is a few unrepresentative millionaires and billionaires who enjoy making the United States government quake both for Netanyahu’s sake and to feel all-powerful. Don’t blame the Jews.

And, Mr. President, do us all a favor and choose Chuck Hagel. The complaints of those whose first, and usually only, concern is ensuring that the U.S. never says no to Netanyahu should be ignored.  As someone once said, or should have: the power of campaign contributions must stop at the water’s edge.

The American Jewish Committee was the latest Jewish organization to enlist in the battle to prevent President Barack Obama from naming former Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense. The onslaught is unprecedented. Never before has virtually the entire organized Jewish community combined to stop a presidential cabinet appointment because it deems the potential nominee insufficiently devoted to Israel. Of course, below the cabinet level, the lobby has been manning the barricades against critics of any Israeli government policies for decades.

The onslaught against Hagel is unique however because the reason for it is not merely that he opposes the rush to war with Iran and favors negotiating an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The reason is because he dared to refer to the existence of the Israel lobby. He said this in 2008 in an interview with former State Department official, Aaron Miller.

This [Congress] is an institution that does not inherently bring out a great deal of courage,” Hagel continued. “Most of the time members play it safe and adopt an ‘I’ll support Israel’ attitude. AIPAC comes knocking with a pro-Israel letter, and ‘then you’ll get 80 to 90 senators on it. I don’t think I’ve ever signed one of the letters.’

When someone would accuse him of not being pro-Israel because he didn’t sign the letter, Hagel told me he responds: “‘I didn’t sign the letter because it was a stupid letter.” Few legislators talk this way on the Hill. Hagel is a strong supporter of Israel and a believer in shared values. “The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here,” but as he put it, “I’m a United States senator. I’m not an Israeli senator.”

That quote will likely doom Hagel’s candidacy because, if there is one institution that isconsidereduntouchable, it is the Israel lobby and its power.

Here is Wall Street Journal columnist Brett Stephens, a major neocon and Netanyahu supporter, on the implications of Hagel’s remarks.

Prejudice – like cooking, wine-tasting and other consummations – has an olfactory element. When Chuck Hagel, the former GOP senator from Nebraska who is now a front-runner to be the next secretary of Defense, carries on about how “the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here,” the odor is especially ripe.

Ripe because a “Jewish lobby,” as far as I’m aware, doesn’t exist. No lesser authorities on the subject than John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, authors of “The Israel Lobby,” have insisted the term Jewish lobby is “inaccurate and misleading, both because the [Israel] lobby includes non-Jews like Christian Zionists and because many Jewish Americans do not support the hard-line policies favored by its most powerful elements.”….

Ripe because the word “intimidates” ascribes to the so-called Jewish lobby powers that are at once vast, invisible and malevolent; and because it suggests that legislators who adopt positions friendly to that lobby are doing so not from political conviction but out of personal fear. Just what does that Jewish Lobby have on them?

In short, Hagel is an anti-Semite because he stated that the “Jewish lobby” both exists and “intimidates…”

It is true that it is impolitic to use the term “Jewish lobby” rather than “Israel lobby” although the very same people criticizing Hagel for using the former term objected just as vehemently when Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer used the latter in their book on the subject. In any case, the term Jewish lobby is accurate when one refers to organizations like the American Jewish Committee or the Anti-Defamation League, etc. They are Jewish organizations and not AIPAC, the registered Israel lobby.

As for the non-Jews and Christian Zionists that are supposedly part of the lobby, that is just silly. Having worked on Capitol Hill for 20 years, I can attest to the fact that the only voices that matter in Washington on this issue comes from Jews. The lobby contributes millions of dollars to candidates based on its determination of his or her devotion to Israel. No non-Jewish organization does that. The whole “Christian Zionist” thing is a joke and will be until John Hagee’s Christians United For Israel starts pouring money into our campaigns. And to BOTH parties.

Of course, the irony about the war on Hagel is that it has been launched against him because he says that the lobby acts as one to intimidate policymakers and legislators and the lobby screams that there is no such thing as an organized lobby that does these things.

Here is a list (not comprehensive) of those who have enlisted in the campaign against Chuck Hagel:

American Jewish Committee

The Anti-Defamation League

AIPAC

Commentary

Republican Jewish Coalition

National Jewish Democratic Council

The Israel Project

The Zionist Organization of America

Plus, Bill Kristol, Jennifer Rubin, Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post, Ed Koch

This list is only partial. Virtually all Jewish organizations, politicians and media figures are under pressure to condemn Hagel and many of them will. To its credit J Street is supporting Hagel and Israel Policy Forum has long been in the Hagel camp (it honored him for his support for Israel’s security in 2008).

But the others are all marching in lockstep to destroy a senator, a war hero (highly decorated Marine) and one of the most thoughtful public officials on foreign policy matters. I say “destroy” because the charge of anti-Semitism can and does destroy. If Obama decides not to pick Hagel (and he probably will so decide), this great American will be tarred forever by the charge.

The good news is that the lobby will be shown to be precisely what its critics say it is. It is an organized machine, dedicated to the interests of the Israeli right that uses its power to ensure that no one in our government ever challenges Israel’s government on anything. Of course, it is unlikely that the media will even report the story.

In the wake of last week’s horrors in Connecticut, the media is talking almost endlessly about the sickening power of the gun lobby. But the gun lobby doesn’t come close to AIPAC’s power to intimidate. After all, as I said, everyone discusses the NRA and what should be done about it. Virtually no one in the media discusses the Israel lobby. If Hagel is rejected by Obama, don’t expect David Gregory, Rachel Maddow, or any of the rest of them to explain why. They can’t. They are afraid. But they are not afraid of the NRA. Doesn’t that tell you something?

Fortunately, there is the blogosphere (again, most of the major bloggers are intimidated into silence on the lobby but not all) where the most prominent voice of all, former New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan does have the guts to speak out. He says:

Like a kabuki dance,here it comes: the usual vile insinuations; the usual call for the Greater Israel Lobby to kill a nomination because a US Senator actually believe his job is to care first about the security and interests of the US, not Greater Israel; the reflexive equation of opposition to the Netanyahu administration or the settlements or the Gaza wars with pure bigotry. The phrases – “the odor is especially ripe” – are as preeningly self-righteous as they are toxic. You are not allowed, for example, to note that well-financed organized Washington lobbies “intimidate” lawmakers:

the word “intimidates” ascribes to the so-called Jewish lobby powers that are at once vast, invisible and malevolent; and because it suggests that legislators who adopt positions friendly to that lobby are doing so not from political conviction but out of personal fear.

It’s interesting to read this familiar, exhausted, ridiculous whine in the context of our current discussion about the NRA. The NRA is routinely called the gun lobby and it is described in exactly the same terms as AIPAC: “vast, invisible and malevolent” – because it is precisely as effective and relentless and as fanatical as AIPAC in wielding money, networking and political pressure in attaining its legislative goals. But we are forbidden from calling AIPAC what it is the way we call the NRA what it is – because telling the truth about it has been stigmatized as anti-Semitism.

It’s a useful ruse for bullies like the Greater Israel Lobby. It’s also an insult to those who have suffered and been murdered by actual anti-Semites. But for utopian fanatics, if casually calling honorable public servants anti-Semites helps them retain their dream of a Greater Israel, so be it. Which is why the president, if indeed he is contemplating an appointment for the Nebraska Republican, should not listen to the AIPAC thugs. He should what is right for this country, and not any other’s.

Sullivan leaves out one thing. The Israel Lobby is bad for the Jews. It suggests that Jewish Americans put the interests of a foreign country first which is a damnable lie. As every poll shows, Jewish Americans not only don’t vote based on Israel, they are not overly Israel centered at all. Moreover, those of us who do deeply care about Israel (although not more than we care about our own country) believe that the best way to support Israel is to work for peace with the Palestinians and to oppose war with Iran just as Hagel does. The lobby knows that but it has higher goals: making our government tremble, supporting Binyamin Netanyahu, and scaring Jews into donating more money to their respective organizations.

In short, the lobby is bad for America. But it’s worse for Jews.

How dare these hacks and lobbyists jeopardize our future in the best home Jews have ever had?

At first glance, the only thing surprising about the Congressional letter demanding that the Palestinians be punished for taking their case to the United Nations is that AIPAC’s role in producing it is stated openly. The cover letter to House members asking for their signatures (from a staffer working for House Foreign Affairs Committee chair, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen) reads as follows:

I wanted to draw your attention to a bipartisan letter (supported by AIPAC) to President Obama from Chairman Ros-Lehtinen, Ranking Member [Howard] Berman, Chairman-designate [Ed] Royce, and Ranking Member-designate [Elliot] Engel. The letter calls on the President to impose strong, specified consequences on the Palestinian leadership and the United Nations for the UN General Assembly move to upgrade the status of the mission of “Palestine” (the PLO) to “Non-Member Observer” state. The text of the letter is below. (Italics mine).

As I said, initially the only surprise seems to be that the Ros-Lehtinen staffer actually mentions AIPAC. As a long-time Capitol Hill staffer I can tell you that it is unheard of for AIPAC to be specifically mentioned when circulating a letter drafted by AIPAC. As is the case with Israel’s nuclear arsenal, it is considered very bad form to acknowledge what everyone knows. In this case, it is that all major Congressional initiatives related to Israel, Palestine, or Iran originates with AIPAC.

But there is another element even more striking. It is that Howard Berman is one of the four representatives circulating the letter.

Before November, of course, it would have been inconceivable that Berman would not have been. He is AIPAC’s main man in the House and, although more thoughtful than most lobby cutouts, always ends up (after much agonizing) on the side of the lobby.

But Berman lost his re-election bid and is currently seeking a position with the Obama administration. Why would he sign a letter like this now?

Just read the text.

The letter not only calls on Obama to punish the Palestinians for going to the United Nations; it asks him to consider punishing the United Nations too. Why? Because the Palestinians did in 2012 what the Israelis did in 1947: they went to the United Nations General Assembly to ask to have their right to statehood recognized. AIPAC and its Congressional cutouts call this “unilateralism,” as if there can be anything unilateral about going to the, by definition, multilateral United Nations.

And, of course, only 6 countries in the world supported the US/Israel position opposing Palestinian observer status. They were Canada, Czech Republic, Panama, The Marshall Islands, Palau, Nauru, and Micronesia. 138 voted for Palestinian observer status.

The U.S. vote made us look ridiculous or, to be precise, like Netanyahu’s tool. And now AIPAC compounds the damage by devising a House initiative demanding punishment for pretty much the entire world (the Palestinians and the United Nations) for daring to oppose our position.

And Howard Berman is leading the effort.

Is he unaware that our position on this issue further isolates the United States and reduces our influence in the Middle East? Is he unaware that the President is almost certain not to do what the letter asks him to do (unless Congress ties his hands and makes AIPAC’s demands the law)? Is he unaware that when Obama ignores the letter that Republicans will use it to bash Obama and Democrats as anti-Israel?  And, above all, is he unaware  that U.S. interests are damaged every time they are subordinated to those of Israel?

I cannot believer Berman does not know these things so I have to conclude that his dedication to the proposition that “no daylight” must ever come between Israel and the United States is something he truly believes. What’s good for Israel is good for the United States!

In short, maybe I am wrong about some of these guys. I tend to believe that they grovel before AIPAC entirely for campaign contributions. But Berman isn’t running for anything; he doesn’t need the money.

Apparently, he is a true believer. He just puts Israel’s interests (as he perceives them) first.  Funny, if it was the money it would not be as deeply offensive.

If he gets a job in the Obama administration, I hope it is on the domestic side, far from Israel and its interests.  That would obviously be best for everyone.

I am not going to recapitulate the sad story of what happened at Congregation Bnai Jeshurun in Manhattan this week except to say that progressive Jews (and others) thought a new day had dawned when its rabbis hailed the General Assembly vote on Palestine.  (Here is the New York Times story on that development.)   But then, within two days, the rabbis at Bnai Jeshurun were forced to clarify following a firestorm of abuse, ginned up by the usual suspects. (Here is the New York Times story on the retraction.)

The rabbis, of course, deny that they retracted anything.  That is what they have to say. And they certainly will not confirm  that they were threatened by big donors to their congregation, the Embassy of Israel, or other Jewish establishment big wigs for daring to break with Netanyahu. That is all to be expected. Part of the deal, when you accede to pressure, is that you do not reveal what actually went down.

But it is obvious what happened. Threats were made. They didn’t have to be direct. No one has to tell those working for organizations (or synagogues) dependent on donations from the Jewish community what they can and cannot say.

In most cases, they don’t need to be warned. They impose prior restraint on themselves.  They don’t believe the line, they think it is disastrous for Israel but they also know that saying what they believe will cost their organizations money and may cost them their jobs. So they mouth the line, over and over again. And they are happy because Israel’s ambassador to the United States pats them on the back, and the donors make clear that the checks will continue to be written.

I do not put the B’nai Jeshurun rabbis in the same category as the organizational types.

Rabbis J.Rolando Matalon,  Marcelo R. Bronstein and Felicia L. Sol are known throughout the Jewish community for their moral leadership and idealism.  And they clearly thought (read the email that caused the brouhaha) that demonstrating that moral leadership by endorsing the Palestine resolution would not cause the roof to cave in. Yes, they knew they were sticking their necks out but not too far. Surely, it would be okay.

The more politically attuned within the Jewish community would have known better. The pro-Israel community is like the gun lobby. The National Rifle Association doesn’t really believe that the “right” to own a semi-automatic weapon is in the same category as the right to a hunting rifle, but they will oppose any restrictions on owning that automatic none the same.

That is because it thinks any regulation on any firearm is a slide down the slippery slope to confiscation of all weapons. Actually, it is possible that they don’t even believe that.  It is just as likely that the NRA just wants to keep Congress and the political community in line. At some point, these organizational leaders just exert power for its own sake (getting politicians to grovel and making more money).

And so it is with the pro-Israel community. Any challenge to the prevailing orthodoxy on the occupation will be met with threats and attacks. Look at Peter Beinart. He is an Orthodox Jew, a lifelong Zionist, and a leader in the community. But when he endorsed boycotting West Bank settlements — not Israel itself, just the products of the settlements —  he was condemned by the entire establishment.  Last month the Atlanta Jewish Community Center refused to allow him to speak on its premises, as if he was a KKK leader.  To its credit, J Street gave him a venue.

Now here is the creepiest part. Virtually none of the Jewish community’s enforcers on matters related to Israel apply the same standard to criticism of U.S. policies (except those policies that are related to Israel). The older ones openly opposed the war in Vietnam (some were war resisters).  The younger ones opposed the Iraq war (contrary to common belief, Israel had no clear position on the Iraq war in contrast to their neocon pals here).

If some government official in Washington told them to pipe down, they would scream bloody murder. But when it comes to the occupation or Iran, they march as one behind Binyamin Netanyahu. Why? They are afraid. It’s as if they own a store in a neighborhood that is dominated by the mob. They don’t ask for an explanation of why they need to hire this guy’s brother-in-law or give the assigned “tips” to various people in the neighborhood. They just do it. It is the price of doing business.

A different sort of mob runs the American Jewish community. Fortunately, like Tony Soprano’s organization in that much mourned HBO series, it is falling on hard times. It is dominated by old people while nearly 60% of the young marry out of the community and consider Israel a foreign country — one that they may have some interest in but not all that much.  That is why a congregation like Bnai Jeshurun is so successful. It attracts those people, understanding in the timeless words of Whitney Houston that “children are our future.”  That is also why one of the few  speakers who can attract Jewish audiences where the average age is under 70 is Peter Beinart. To put it simply, the kids don’t like hacks. And they don’t salute and “yes sir” their own government, let alone one 6000 miles away.

But the establishment, and its terrified salarymen (there are no women in these jobs) don’t care. They don’t care about what is right. They don’t care about Israel (they know its current policies are destroying it but won’t say what they know). And they don’t care about how America’s Israel-centric policies are hurting this country. As far as losing the younger generation, they don’t care about that either. They will have retired by the time all these thoroughly Americanized Jewish kids are the ones with the money.

But they will speak out on what is happening in the Congo or Burma. It’s not that they care about those places either but they do like to think of themselves as moral paragons. And they are allowed to say whatever they want about human rights abuses perpetrated by anyone except Israelis.

Congratulations to the rabbis of Bnai Jeshurun. One, you did the right thing. And, two, the reaction to your act will only weaken the hacks and fat cats that are the Jewish establishment.

As Steve Rosen, the indicted AIPAC official, once told me: a lobby is a night flower. It thrives in the darkness and withers in the daylight.  Rabbis J.Rolando Matalon, Marcelo R. Bronstein and Felicia L. Sol shined a powerful light indeed. And the night flower will feel the withering effects. You did good.

***

FLASH: Americans For Peace Now and J Street are both demanding that President Obama condemn Israeli settlement expansion. Now that is good news to end the week with. And I give the rabbis at Bnai Jeshurun some of the credit.  Congratulations to J Street and APN.

When you go see Les Miz, know that you are now with the young people waving  the flags. The Jewish establishment is the National Guard.