Will Israel Split America's Religious Left?

With your help, it might. Anti-Israel, South Africa, highlighting the 'lunatic' quote maker, over-reaction, defensive crouch, ratchet up its rhetoric, Israel Bad/Good. You're the one encouraging/endorsing the split. It sounds like you would answer the title question with "I hope so."

If American Jews "suppress their anguish and in many cases disgust about Israel and go forth with a fulsome defense of Israel," that is their business, but they are part of the problem.

If you wanted to help end this cycle, you would challenge American Jews to exert pressure on Israel, not justify their (already strong and not likely to change) reluctance to do so.

But aren't just talking about the UCC, we are talking about Mainline churches of the religious left. And U.S. Jewish organizations are often guilty of questioning any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism, even while cozying with religious conservatives whose domestic agenda includes silencing religious minority voices and making Christianity the de facto public religion.

Michael commented "Why is every criticism of Israel's foreign policy considered "anti-Israel"?

Gary F concluded he was "Wrong:" But how does Gary F justify his claim?
Gary simply names a dozen Jewish organizations that agreed that so-and-so are Anti Semitic. Gary, that is not an argument.
That is simply saying "because we say so".
In fact Michael is very much correct. 99% of the accusations of Anti Semitism nowadays, is an attempt to silence criticism of the Israeli state.
With all due respect, I have read Norman Finkelstein's book The Holocaust Industry, and am reading Beyond Chutzpah. Norman Finkelstein's work, from what I've read, seems to be extra-ordinarily well researched, and well argumented. You ought to give it a try, read his work for yourself.
It is sad that it is easier to hear criticism of Israel in the Israeli press, than it is in the American "freedom of speech" media.

well said abe!!

here is an interesting opinion on the current slaughter in gaza

The Facts about Hamas and the War on Gaza

Hamas was signaling that it wanted a diplomatic settlement of the conflict along the June 1967 border. In order to defeat the peace offensive, Israel sought to dismantle Hamas. The blockade was implemented before Hamas came to power. It doesn’t even have anything to do with Hamas, notes Norman Finkelstein.

The record is fairly clear. You can find it on the Israeli website, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. The record is clear: Israel broke the ceasefire by going into the Gaza and killing six or seven Palestinian militants. At that point—and now I’m quoting the official Israeli website—Hamas retaliated or, in retaliation for the Israeli attack, then launched the missiles.

Now, as to the reason why, the record is fairly clear as well. According to Ha’aretz, Defense Minister Barak began plans for this invasion before the ceasefire even began. In fact, according to yesterday’s Ha’aretz, the plans for the invasion began in March. And the main reasons for the invasion, I think, are twofold. Number one; to enhance what Israel calls its deterrence capacity, which in layman’s language basically means Israel’s capacity to terrorize the region into submission. After their defeat in July 2006 in Lebanon, they felt it important to transmit the message that Israel is still a fighting force, still capable of terrorizing those who dare defy its word.

And the second main reason for the attack is because Hamas was signaling that it wanted a diplomatic settlement of the conflict along the June 1967 border. That is to say, Hamas was signaling they had joined the international consensus, they had joined most of the international community, overwhelmingly the international community, in seeking a diplomatic settlement. And at that point, Israel was faced with what Israelis call a Palestinian peace offensive. And in order to defeat the peace offensive, they sought to dismantle Hamas.

As was documented in the April 2008 issue of Vanity Fair by the writer David Rose, basing himself on internal US documents, it was the United States in cahoots with the Palestinian Authority and Israel which were attempting a putsch on Hamas, and Hamas preempted the putsch. That, too, is no longer debatable or no longer a controversial claim.

The issue is can it rule in Gaza if Israel maintains a blockade and prevents economic activity among the Palestinians. The blockade, incidentally, was implemented before Hamas came to power. The blockade doesn’t even have anything to do with Hamas. The blockade came to—there were Americans who were sent over, in particular James Wolfensohn, to try to break the blockade after Israel redeployed its troops in Gaza.

The problem all along has been that Israel doesn’t want Gaza to develop, and Israel doesn’t want to resolve diplomatically the conflict, both the leadership in Damascus and the leadership in the Gaza have repeatedly made statements they’re willing to settle the conflict in the June 1967 border. The record is fairly clear. In fact, it’s unambiguously clear.

Every year, the United Nations General Assembly votes on a resolution entitled “Peaceful Settlement of the Palestine Question.” And every year the vote is the same: it’s the whole world on one side; Israel, the United States and some South Sea atolls and Australia on the other side. The vote this past year was 164-to-7. Every year since 1989—in 1989, the vote was 151-to-3, the whole world on one side, the United States, Israel and the island state of Dominica on the other side.

We have the Arab League, all twenty-two members of the Arab League, favoring a two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. We have the Palestinian Authority favoring that two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. We now have Hamas favoring that two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. The one and only obstacle is Israel, backed by the United States. That’s the problem.

Well, the record shows that Hamas wanted to continue the ceasefire, but only on condition that Israel eases the blockade. Long before Hamas began the retaliatory rocket attacks on Israel, Palestinians were facing a humanitarian crisis in Gaza because of the blockade. The former High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, described what was going on in Gaza as a destruction of a civilization. This was during the ceasefire period.

What does the record show? The record shows for the past twenty or more years, the entire international community has sought to settle the conflict in the June 1967 border with a just resolution of the refugee question. Are all 164 nations of the United Nations the rejectionists? And are the only people in favor of peace the United States, Israel, Nauru, Palau, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Australia? Who are the rejectionists? Who’s opposing a peace?

The record shows that in every crucial issue raised at Camp David, then under the Clinton parameters, and then in Taba, at every single point, all the concessions came from the Palestinians. Israel didn’t make any concessions. Every concession came from the Palestinians. The Palestinians have repeatedly expressed a willingness to settle the conflict in accordance with international law.

The law is very clear. July 2004, the highest judicial body in the world, the International Court of Justice, ruled Israel has no title to any of the West Bank and any of Gaza. They have no title to Jerusalem. Arab East Jerusalem, according to the highest judicial body in the world, is occupied Palestinian territory. The International Court of Justice ruled all the settlements, all the settlements in the West Bank, are illegal under international law.

Now, the important point is, on all those questions, the Palestinians were willing to make concessions. They made all the concessions. Israel didn’t make any concessions.

I think it’s fairly clear what needs to happen. Number one, the United States and Israel have to join the rest of the international community, have to abide by international law. I don’t think international law should be trivialized. I think it’s a serious issue. If Israel is in defiance of international law, it should be called into account, just like any other state in the world.

Mr. Obama has to level with the American people. He has to be honest about what is the main obstacle to resolving the conflict. It’s not Palestinian rejectionism. It’s the refusal of Israel, backed by the United States government, to abide by international law, to abide by the opinion of the international community.

And the main challenge for all of us as Americans is to see through the lies.

Norman Finkelstein is author of five books, including Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, Beyond Chutzpah and The Holocaust Industry, which have been translated into more than 40 foreign editions. He is the son of Holocaust survivors. His website is www.NormanFinkelstein.com. The article is an edited extract of the views of Finkelstein given at DemocracyNow.org.