Response / On 'exorcising' Israel bashers from the Jewish mainstream

What a load of rubbish Gil...all through that article it shines with the Jewish belief that whatever they do is right and they can never be wrong...there's a word for that, its called arrogance...strange thought for you not everyone who disagree's with you is an anti-semite, you can be wrong at times, accept it

Too bad it's in the service of an utterly indefensible cause. Still, gotta give credit where credit is due. Impressive rhetoric.

But we do not call our country Jewish just democtratic.And whether you approve or not, IT ALSO HAPPENS TO BE JEWISH A 100% . Seems to bother you the concept of Judaism...Sorry old chum we are: A country,a people,a religion, And above all we are the only democratic country in the whole ME. Take that in consideration and stop muddying the waters,or NIT PICKING

Why sholdn't Observer have his opinion too? Whether he lives in Paris or anywhere else, does it make him any different from the many who post here from diverse countries. Are yiu going to be MASTER OF CEREMONIES here and order who should be allowed to discuss anything you approve NOT? What gives you the right?

By your own words you have condemned yourself.No tone interlocuter ever said the Arabs should convert/stop being Muslims. Yours is the typical misconception to distort the FACTS.It is your "modus operandi" Zeev. We only ask for them to become somewhat_ less_,if_not_stop_fundementalism_in_their_ attitude_and_ thinking_.Full STOP

Writing what in essence is the absolute truth. Many of us,be it secular Jews,or middle of the road types have objected vociferously on the talkbacks to the many Haaretz(as an example)contributors who tend to post here at Haaretz.Are encouraged by allowing their twisted logic to be heard,dismissing opponents views(us Jews)A constant fight which some of us do get discouraged and are censored. Their constant delegitimizing Israel seems to be their "raison d'etre".Methinks why do they? It happens by our Jewish academics and philanthropists not only in the US who comprise in the majority,but some,but in Israel too. That they earn their livelihood through it is shocking,and they proliferate by the thousands. Why and what possess them to feel/act this way is something I cannot fathom. Since I can only articulate it in my simple way, I hope you will accept my feelings for what is worth.I love my country/people"warts"and all. You are A BREATH OF FRESH AIR.Thank you

...You and your fellow Israel bashers might claim that Israel was making the wrong concessions but please don't claim that they did not try to resolve the conflict. You might ask yourself instead: What concessions did the Palestinian Arabs make? "Any nation that gives total allegiance to the power in place condemns itself "to stagnancy and regression"(Zeev's quote) Now there is a bright sentiment .... (NOT!). So what would you suggest? Plead for mercy? Beg the Palestinian Arabs not to hurt them? Is that what you and your professor would prefer? Remember the history of this conflict. The Arabs were the aggressors and their stated aim was to destroy "the cancer in their midst" which was/is their euphemism for the state of Israel...

I presume you want the Arab countries to become democratic ones. Does that mean you also want them to cease being Muslim? We and other people call our state 'Jewish' because there is no other one. If there was only one Muslim country in this world, with a democratic regime, people would call it 'the Muslim state'. What would be wrong with that?

Whoever is responsible for the occupation - I have tired of discussing it with you - be it Israel, the Palestinians or the man in the moon, the question has to be asked: Can a nation occupying a foreign and stateless population for 42 years, be honestly called "a nation under siege"? My answer is no. Leibler's claim is ridiculous and dishonest. "Could it be that Isi Leibler is talking exactly about people like you?" (Tim R) It could be. Ask him. He left his mail address at the end of his 'ad nauseam' diasporic whine/rant. In any case, rather than to be on his side, I much prefer, believe me, siding with people like Prof. Zeev Sternhell for instance, undoubtedly one of those Israeli academics so grotesquely accused by Leibler of vilifying their country and identifying with the enemy. Poor clueless Liebler, who has yet to grasp the difference between a country and its government. A difference that the right-wing parties, in their hunger for power, always seek to obfuscate. "WE are the state. Attacking us is attacking the country itself." Hogwash. Any nation that gives total allegiance to the power in place condemns itself "to stagnancy and regression" (bored #8 is right) if not to ruin. Prof. Sternhell could teach Liebler a lot on the subject. "Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. As a result, Hamas escalated their rocket barrage of Israeli civilians." (Tim R) That's correct. But the only surprised ones were the bird-brained. In March 1979, Israel handed back the whole of Sinai into Anwar Sadat's hands, against a signed treaty, and we got peace. In summer 2005, Sharon idiotically abandoned the Gaza Strip to no one - without asking for any return, and we got war with an tiny Islamist enclave we now cannot live with, nor defeat, we who 42 years ago knew how to crush three Arab armies in six days. The people is always paying the price for its (elected) leaders' follies. Nothing new under the sun.

Please someone explain what a Jewish and democratic state is? Is it fish or fowl? It can't be both! Surely "Jewish democratic" cannot purport to be democratic, as to be "democratic" it cannot have the qualifier "Jewish". My reading is "Jewish democratic" means democratic so long as it is limited to "Jewish", which is not democratic at all.

Isi Leibler has written numerous articles in favor of gay marriage, both in Israel and in the U.S. There is no reason for you to be getting so hot under the collar about him expressing his views.

sh, we're both interpreting his words, but i'm not stating what 'would've been' - i don't know. whatever one says about this becomes a conjecture as it remains hypothetical. if you read what i said in #49 before commenting on your post you'll see that i'm saying the same thing as you - that rabin would surely have influenced the course of events himself had he not been assassinated, but we don't know which way it all would've turned out, which is where the difficulty lies. i'm sure you're right that he was dedicated to stay the course, but as i said, 'the course' wasn't really fixed yet at the time. the idea of 2 states a la taba /the geneva accords wasn't such an established, accepted formula yet in those days, not even in the peace camp. what's easy is to say one knows this /that would've happened, which becomes a sort of 'abuse' whatever camp one adheres to. but i'm really not sure, believe me. rgs,-

- Right after 1967 Israel offered to withdraw (except from Jerusalem which Jordan illegally occupied previously) in exchange for peace and recognition. Tae Arabs said No, No, No. - In 2000/2001 Ehud Barak offered to give up 97% of the West Bank and an offset for the remaining 3%, in exchange for peace and recognition. Arafat could not get himself to say yes to the offer. - In 2005 Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. In return, Hamas escalated their rocket barrage of Israeli civilians. - In the Last few years, Olmert attempted to negotiate a peace deal involving a withdrawal of Israel from most of the West Bank in exchange for peace. There were still no takers on the Palestinian side. So Zeev dear, why are you D-E-M-O-N-I-Z-I-N-G only Israel for the occupation? Could it be that Isi Leibler is talking exactly about people like you?

Who are you, dummy, to decide, from your exile in Paris, who has or has no "right to be part of Israel or Judaism"?

Isi is correct in both articles. Jews (as Sand or JStreet) whose actvities feed a/s or provide aid and comfort to the enemy, should be ostracised. They have a right to express ther opinion - but no inherent right to be part of Israel or Judaism.

Netanyahu acknowledgment of failure Already difficult to disguise, the loss of legitimacy becomes impossible to conceal once Palestinians are a demographic majority ruled by a Jewish minority. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's demand that Palestinians recognize Israel's "right to exist as a Jewish state" is in effect an acknowledgement of failure: without Palestinian consent, something which is unlikely ever to be granted, the Zionist project of a Jewish ethnocracy in Palestine has grim long-term prospects.

Great response Isi. Parallels very much my thoughts on JStreet. The very idea of any Iranian or Saudi money going to JStreet with them claiming to be 'Friends of Israel' is so ludicrous as is their attempt to circumvent the democratic process in Israel.

"A nation under siege" does not keep occupying, for 42 years now, a foreign and stateless population. Neither does it build settlements as "facts on the ground" on a territory outside its sovereignty, for the sole benefit of its religious fanatics. Nor does it claim to know better than the rest of the world what international law is. You do not know what your are talking about, Mr. Leibler. Most obviously.

Your point is very interesting and seems accurate. However, at the same time it looks that Putin pays little attention to it. In China they have not heard about it, and excerise theyr sovereignty regardless of human rights. My impression is that sooner or later in the Western dmocratic world they will also realize, that either return to sovereigny or disappear. Soft power is laughable, and Obama is slowly understanding this. The shift will be seen in Afghanistan very soon. Or withdraw or win. NO other choices. To Win Means (regretable) "to hell with human rights"

as for the "jewish" state: please don't forget that israel is a zionist state, peters; NOT a judaic state. eligibility for israeli citizenship is based on ancestry; NOT religion. to zionist israel, judaism is an incidental; one which the founders of zionism didn't even consider a positive attribute. calling israel a "jewish state" is a convenient ambiguity, peters; one that zionism uses in its attempt to include ALL of judaism within its nationalist perspective and the goals of regional expansion it harbors...which the author's comments completely exemplify. but "true" zionism and "true" judaism are in fact quite at odds with each other.

Another one of Liebler's comments on Strenger: But he [Strenger] goes further. He implies that my views "could be taken seriously by someone like Yaakov Teitel," the alleged fiendish deranged Jewish terrorist. I will not dignify such an obscene assertion by a response. This is what Strenger wrote I want to make it clear: Leibler does not call for physical violence. Yet terms like "apostates" and "excommunication" are a clear way of delegitimizing the large proportion of the Jewish people, who disagree with him. He should not forget that there might always be somebody like Yaakov Teitel who takes him more seriously than I assume he wants to be taken. I hope that Mr. Leibler condemns such acts unequivocally as every civilized human being, Jewish or not, should. Again: Liebler completely distorts and misrepresents what Strenger wrote. Strenger simply meant that vilifying critics and calling for their "excommunication" could be understood by primitive fanatic minds as a green light t

Liebler claims that Carlo Strenger misrepresented him: "More disturbingly, Carlo Strenger joins those exploiting the memory of Yitzhak Rabin to cynically intimidate and silence their opponents." This is what Strenger ACTUALLY wrote ".... I want to urge Mr. Leibler to restore sanity to the discussion about Israeli politics and renounce hate speech of all sorts. I want to call on him that we need to restore dialogue even between those groups that bitterly disagree with each other." "In calling for excommunication of those who disagree with him, Leibler seems to endow himself with papal infallibility in knowing what is good for Israel - but in Jewish tradition nobody can claim infallibility. I want to remind Mr. Leibler of the rules of plugta, of civilized argument and disagreement that have been held dear in Jewish tradition, and I will gladly meet with him and talk." Strenger's reply can hardly be the vicious attack that Liebler claims. Actually, it is him who slanders Strenger

...I say nothing. I'm not on that list.

As someone who teaches Jewish Studies in a major Canadian university, I was appalled at isi Leibler's article. It is the easiest tactic in the world to accuse those you wish to demonize of demonizing you. Antisemites have known that through the centuries. But who on earth is Isi Leibler claiming to be Israel bashers? Has he even looked at the J-Street conference program? Shlomo Ben Ami, former Israeli Foreign Secretary? Ami Ayalon, former head of Shin Bet? Akiva Eldar, whom all readers of Ha'aretz know and value? Amir Peretz, former Deputy Prime Minister? Meir Sheetrit, former Finance Minister and Interior Minister? Leading members of Meretz, Labour and Kadima? Leading members of American Jewry, like Rabbi Eric Yoffie? Are these not mainstream? Are these the voices Isi Leibler wishes to silence? I try to teach my students a certain degree of civility in public discourse. Your readers deserve no less.

J-Street never asked the US to pressure Israel, they ask Obama to put pressure on Netanyahu. Don't forget that Netanyahu and his fellows are looking for political support in the Congress. Thus, they are trying to marginalize Obama. Does it mean that the Republicans who support him are anti-American? Isi Leibler is not capable yet of distinguishing between supporting the Likud and supporting Israel. It's very sad. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and some people have reflexes inherited from the rest of the region I guess. Israel doesn't need a Rais but a strong parliament and a strong opposition as well.

He tries to separate himself from the people that bash Jews for not following the party line on Israel, yet does the same thing while pretending he is better. He's trying to have his matzah and eat it too. For example, he demonizes professors by labeling them as "academics who abuse academic freedom by exploiting their universities as launching pads to vilify Israel" instead of Israeli/Jewish professors who want to use certain means to help shape Israeli policies (particulary the ones against freedoms and freedoms of Arab Israelis). He attacks J Street, by stating that he is critical of them because of their "preposterously false attempts to portray themselves as pro-Israel" but not there "views". This is where he lacks the chutzpah to say what he really is attacking - their views. Now, like many Israelis, he's using the strawman arguement to make J Street defend themselves as being "pro-Israeli". Though truthfully, they may be more pro-Jewish then pro-Israeli.

I always find Isi Liebler's articles well written and sensible. I also find the response of certain Haaretz posters rather too predictable and inclined to savage any one who is moderate and thoughtful. Perhaps Isi is writing for the wrong readership.

No state is an island just as no country is an island and this is esp. significant in the global economy today. And perhaps equally im- portant criticism keeps member states from slipping into their own tyranny & dogma which doesn't serve the common good either. This is beauty of diversity as it promotes movement in thought and purpose and how can a people grow like a tree if it is fenced in and block off? This really goes against the natural order of things and indeed the species as man like all animals is a roaming and seeking beast not just to gather his food but for food for thought and purpose too. That's the uplifting thing about diversity and the down side of look- ing inwards and closing one self and one's people off.....Dutch

Who decides? the jewish thought police?

self-hating Jews.They will deny.It`s not the hate,it`s some unsertainty in our capability.

More tiresome twaddle from an old-style tribalist. A younger generation of Jews globally are not buying into this shtick. We are not prepared to accept human rights abuses simply because they are committed by Jews. We will not be silenced by AIPAC. And we will stand our ground against people like Leibler who have the astonishing arrogance to define what is or is not acceptable criticism for a Jew to make of other Jews.

It appears that those delibarately misinterpreting leibler implying he wants to muzzle all critics of israel have an agenda. By trying to paint leibler as extreme, they hope to give the demonizers credibility as oppressed fighters for justice. All they are really doing is trying to silence the distinction between genuine criticism and anti semetic, anti israel venom. However their attempts are futile because whether or not the general public knows the difference, the Jewish mainstream recognize Jewish defamers of israel for what they are.

Having read the talkbacks, it is clear that some readers are not capable of understanding a very basic premise. Leibler is not seeking to deny freedom of expression. He is not demanding allegiance to Likud. His call to marginalize the Iasrael bashers could be made just as readily by Likud, Labor, Kadima or Meretz supporters. The point of the article is there are red lines. When one actively demonizes and seeks to delegitimize the State of Israel and its right to exist, he is then, for all intents and purposes, acting outside the mainstream, having elected consciously to isolate and marginilize himself. This is not an issue of political expression. Such persons would find themselves rejected not only by people like Leibler, but by all persons who hold the State of Israel dear to them, irrespective of their political persuasions.

The only thing that CJ forgot to add is that Israel will be punished by God. Laughable. As a matter of fact there are no reminders of non payed bills. Israel abides by the 242 biding resolution of the S.C. demanding territories in exchanged for peace. Israel withdrew from all Sinai, from the parts of Jordan demanded by the Kingdom in exchange for peace. It abandoned Gaza and will probably abandon most of the West Bank in exchange for peace and fully recognition of the jewish state, with Jersualem its capital and without refugees. Everything according to the law. The status of the West Bank depends on negotiations between the parts. No law demands Israel to withdraw from it without negotiations and a peace agreement. Besides that, it seems that not Israel but Iran is besieged by the International Community. And what about the intellectuals bashers of Israel???Fun..Wonderful to debate with them. Nothing serious.

While preparing for business negotiations, members of one side may vigorously disagree in private. Appearing in public as anything but united would seriously undermine their position and those doing so would certainly not participate in future negotiations. This is one of the points Leibler is making. Moral intelligent people with integrity may in good faith disagree should their perspectives and broad interpretation of a situation differ. In this case, some believe the core issue is Israel?s borders, while others believe it?s Israel?s existence. Abundant evidence of Arab true intentions is clearly exhibited by their words, deeds, foundation documents, media, and what they teach and preach to their children, i.e., Religious apartheid, hatred of Jews, and a world without Israel. This is evidence and is not opinion or spin resting on heart wrenching sob stories. Many victims of misinformation and Arab myths are deceived and distracted by the focus on legitimate humanitarian c

In a democracy, people can oppose what they like and say what they want within the rule of law. There is no obligation upon the people to either like or slavishly follow the policies of a particular government. Democracy is 'of the people, for the people, by the people'. It is not 'of Likud, for Likud, by Likud'. Leibler makes the mistake of confusing government and state. They are not the same thing. The best interests of the latter may not at all be the political policies of the former and people must be free to point that out without being demonised by politicians. While most of his demonizing is predictable and harmless, his call to sack academic staff if they, in effect, oppose Likud policies, is not, it is a slippery slope by a political party to eroding free speech. He crosses a red line there and thereby alerts us to the dangers inherent in politicians trying to define what we can and can't say.

In Liebler's mind, Jews are not allow to wash dirty laundry (which he woud deny is even soiled)in front of the gentiles. His world view assumes, finds it an imperative, that the world is eternally against us, regardless of what we do. This is an existential reality and the most critcal obligation of the Jew is tribal solidarity, my tribe right or wrong. This is not to be based on a standard of conscience, justice or compassion. Thise are worthless values, they get in the way, they undermine and are dangerous. Zionism is the Torah and any Jew who questions behaviour of Israel, holds it to account and questions its propaganda, they are a danger and must be maligned, sidelined and seperated from the community. Religious mcCarthyism. It is not the critics he maligns but his own idology that is a shame on the House of Israel.

people will debate what 'exactly' killed oslo ad infinitum. i share your balanced approach, but want to add that in a basic way oslo to a great degree killed itself. as many have pointed out, the basic flaw was its 'open-endedness', leaving out the core issues to be dealt with at later stages. not including the settlements issue f.ex. allowed israel to keep provoking the pals, & on security arafat was definitely allowed to play a double, undecisive game v.a.v. his extremists. would he have acted differently, say, if israelis would've been 'more helpful' & was israel mature & ready to relinquish settlements back then? nobody can tell. i don't think oslo went down w/rabin or that he was the only strong pro-peace politician around. the main lesson remains never again to allow an open-ended half-way ageement to pass, which is a sure way to a worst-of-all scenario. i see a direct link there to all the encouragements from certain corners to take a leap w/reg. to hamas f.ex. rgs,-

Loathing Israeli politics of occupation land-grab is not the same as 'self-loating'. Luckily there is no one to one correlation between being a Jew and oppressing Palestinians although people like Isi Leibler seem to think otherwise.

sh, people will make hypothetical claims reg. rabin depending on which camp they adhere to. it's of course an interesting question, 'what he would've done'. i remember rabin hadn't made up his mind at least as late as the spring of -95 (the year of his death) as to whether there should be an independent pal. state, & i have a TIME interview w/him from may -95 to that effect. things were still open & in a flux then. remember that he was gone before the terror attacks had grown really ugly in -96 & he didn't live to see the 2nd intifada. i think it's fair to say that a lot of wise people back then weren't sure of where the whole oslo 'gamble' was going & they were right in being sceptical as well as hopeful.

... simply could not take this quirky Isi Leibler seriously... ... however, considering his long retinue of delighted talkback nochshleppers, maybe one should beware of false messiahas... ... even Shabtai Tzvi had his enthusiasts...

"In a nation under siege and facing existential threats" All the usual bugbears. It is a well worn method to imply the epithet 'traitor' in order to shut down internal opposition, especially in a time of war. Israel is of course bound by fate to be engaged in eternal war hence strident criticism from within the 'community' is always to be equated with treachery. Gentle quietly spoken complaints are of course permitted, provided they are made in the proper place and context as per approval of this author. Very recently Defense Minister Barak in a candid but paradoxical moment of carelessness, stated categorically that "Israel faced no existential threats". Most sane observers also recognise that Gaza is under siege, but also understand that Gaza is NOT Israel. The author speaks of democratic Israel. Presumably he is confusing plurality with democracy. A 'Jewish' state is not a state of all its citizens. 20% are immediately marginalised, but the marginalised still have a voice despite Liebermans best efforts. Israel has lurched to the right, clinging to its Massada mythologies and its perennial toying with the politics of fear in order to entrance the population and stigmatise its opponents into submission. 60 years of fear mongering is enough already. For 20 odd years it may have been justified. Today the only legitimate fear in the region is fear of Israel. Existential threats notwithstanding.

All this is distracting everyone from the real issue. Is Israel serious about peace or not? If Israel is serious then it needs to get serious about halting the settlements as agreed in the road map.

The existential threat Leibler describes feels very real to those of us living here, but he fails to recognise that there is as great a threat - from the inside. He is a member of the Nay-sayers club of Israel, lead by Netanyahu and Lieberman and his rhetoric, like theirs, blinds and deafens him. The late Yitzhak Rabin concluded that Israel could not forever live by the sword; but he was lead there by a process of negotiation already under-way in secret between Israelis and Palestinians and the Israelis were precisely those Leibler now wishes to exorcise. Their echo is in JStreet whose conference I was privileged to attend. There was little sign of the Israel-bashing or Jewish self-loathing Leibler rants about. Instead there was for the first time in years a sense of optimism. Leibler and his AIPAC friends have had it too good for too long and we have been denied peace as a result. One way to achieve it is to cease our internal denial. It is corrosive.

Exorcism is not a Jewish practice it is a pagan one. The Judaism I grew up with taught me to love my neighbor as myself. Not more, but also not less. It taught me to treat the stranger in my midst with kindness until that stranger is a stranger no more. What this article is preaching is to remove anyone who opposes Mr. Leibler's views. He doesn't say how this is to be done. Let's be clear, no-one is exploiting either Rabin or philanthropists from abroad or universities. A professor has a right to an opinion, a dovish Nobel prize-winner too. Philanthropists from abroad WHO LOVE ISRAEL also give to organizations that oppose the occupation. No exploitation there. And Rabin? There's no sign that Rabin would not have pushed forward with his plans. He'd made his decision.

... mouth: You claim that Isi in this article attempts to stifle criticism of Israel's policies. He DOES NOT! What he DOES DO is expose the dishonesty of those Jews who use their Jewishness to demonize Israel. Note the word 'D-E-M-O-N-I-Z-E' which is different from balanced, nuanced criticism. How is it different? Demonizers: - Always blame only Israel - They ignore context - They expect Israel to behave to standards that NOBODY else maintains (even if they pretend to ...) I could go on but I don't believe that I need to because those who don't get what I am saying are either daft or they just don't want to get it ...

"Their right and that of other Israel bashing groups to express their views are not being challenged.But that does not mean that establishment Jewish groups should indulge in kumbaya with those systematically trying to undermine the Jewish state."

You both go to the heart of the issue in your last paragraphs. Very good contributions indeed. Thank you.

Isi Leibler's views were presented in a distorted way by Strenger and Burston. Leibler is an honest fair and courageous, strong supporter of Israel. He is also a very reasonable and decent human being. He has criticized those in religious- and right- wing circles when their actions have in his judgment been mistaken. He is a true thinking person, and not a knee- jerk responder to anything. He has worked in a dedicated fashion for the Jewish people for many years. To have his views distorted and to see him personally and unjustifiably attacked- turns the stomach.

you still haven't answered mine. Who decides what is criticism and what is subversian? Can't you see what a dangerous step it is in a democratic country to stifle free speech and freedom of expression because you do not like what is being said or expressed?

who refuses to close a blind eye, and remain silent, to israel's policies of inequity, oppression, and land theft, as well as the military excesses and abuse of human rights utilized by the idf to enforce those policies. your comments, which condemn human conscience and values, suggest that you place a much higher value on zionism than you do judaism. israel is NOT judaism, nor is zionism. you're doing what zionists have done since they first realized they couldn't populate their new country without it: you're promoting the fallacy that zionism is judaism; and it's NOT.

Chris Linthwaie There is a big deference between Criticism and Subversion, One is OK the other is Not Obviously, you are trying to play dumb in not understanding and making an argument, Anyway, I have no time to teach you the difference, and when one is nothing but the other! Anyway Your examples are those of Criticism and Sarcasm not Subversion Do think why is it so!

Israel?s enemies made anti-Zionism almost a religion on the Left, especially on college campuses. Hatred of Jews is easier to develop and sustain than liking for Palestinians, (something that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has found effective to exploit.) Jew-hatred is inextricably bound up with the anti-Zionism of the Palestinians, the Arab nations, and the Iranians. And as anti-Semitism has been compared to a virus, is it surprising that it has also affected many of the Western supporters of the Middle Eastern anti-Zionist cause? More about the ?poor oppressed Palestinians? at : http://xrl.us/bjt95

What is this piece saying? It is not allright to criticize Israel ? Does it occur to the author that Israel may just be out of line and deserving of crticism? Does it occur to him that for many Jews the notion of morality, fairness, and decency are simply more important than an unconditional support for an Israel that appears to sidestep these very values?

Lie: "Oslo ... proved to be an absolute disaster". Maybe the murder of Rabin, and bb's subsequent expert spin of fear and loathing (and he is still at it ...) had something to do with the "failure" of the Oslo accords?

Sorry, Jerry, for too long "intellectuals" have been taking pot shots at Israel for doing what any other Western country would do. Americans would never tolerate citizens who call for measures which effectively weaken Israel's standing in the world and open "her" up to scorn, ridicule, and punishing sanctions. Don't try to defend these monster. The Anti-Self Defamation League www.asdl.biz

The left has exorcised itself.

To understand where Haaretz comes down on this issue. As a rule those who are most rabid in opposing Israel are printed. A mater of 'fairness.' Likewise any who make the most rabid arguments 'for' Israel appear. Anyone who shows any nuance about the situation is likely to be censored if they oppose an enemy of Israel. and printed if they object to a policy of Israel. This is necessary for 'fairness' as Haaretz would not wish to show favor. This is a curious position unless one understands that like America's (theoretically 'liberal') press which prints unquestioned any lie of the right as necessary for both positions to be treated equally, while refusing to compare the arguments on rational basis for fear of showing bias. The right has automatic advantage and the left cannot understands why people cannot think through the arguments. The left believes in reason, trusting reason to win. The right conquers by emotional appeal

Let's face it. The only purpose in smearing JStreet and other loyal oppositionists is to perpetuate AIAPC's monopoly on what it means to be 'pro-Israel' in America. Well, this won't wash any longer with me. I am pro-Israel, and I support JStreet! I am a life-long Zionist, since the 1970s, and remain a proud Zionist. But, I find the settlement project to be morally indefensible, and JStreet speaks to me on that issue, while AIPAC just says, "Toe the line and shut up."

As long as Israel is STILL breaking International Law, it's actually reasonable that valid criticism continue. A naughty child is either chastised until they behave or else they are punished. One of the basic lessons of life. That Israel is breaking the law is without any doubt and clearly shown by the 223 UNSC resolutions, (most of which are only reminders) against Israel's illegal activities. The Laws and the convictions still stand, only punishment has been prevented by the US veto vote in the UNSC, which of course does not negate the law or Israel's obligations to it. So it quite is valid to continue to be critical of the youngster, until it's life lesson's are learned, for it's own sake. The folk who're only calling for Israel to respect the law, are being vilified by those who support Israel's criminal activities. One might be forgiven for presuming that the latter are willing to break the basic tenets of Judaism. As such they're wrong by every rule in The Book.

Read Isi's article about J Street, and I think that Bursten was correct and did not misconstrue Isi. There are many in J Street who are no doubt naive and misguided and who give ammunition to Israel's enemies. You could say the same thing about the Haredi and the settlers. That does not mean they are not pro-Israel. J Street "demonizing" and "delegitimizing" Israel seems to be in mostly in Isi's head. If J Street people criticize Cast Lead or take the Goldstone report seriously, then the appropriate response is to treat them seriously and say why they are wrong. At Pesach the Sedar talks of four sons, and J Street has elements of the wise son and the simple son. You're supposed to explain to them what's going on. J Street is not the wicked son. They do not separate themselves from Israel and say what are "You" doing. It is what are "we" doing. The "we" is because they identify with Israel, and it is part of them.

an open, direct discussion, possibly w/strenger, too. leibler's views are not far-out, they're not extreme, so he wou'd've deserved to have them heard, especially in a direct confrontation w/the named opponents. on j-street, why it may be worthy of criticism /why not & notably on rabin. the problem of 'where rabin would have been' if not assassinated is that it's hypothetical. time has moved on since -95 & indeed rabin would've moved on. my guess is he'd be somewhere not far from kadima. the really interesting question would be, on how good terms would he still have been w/someone like beilin? but then, if alive he'd have influenced the events himself without a doubt & nobody knows how differently they might've turned in that case.

"Jewish communists who sponsored state sponsored Soviet anti-Semitism in the guise of promoting bogus "peace" campaigns." What? Who??? Liebler, please give me the backstory on this awkwardly worded claim.

Where do the Israelis get guys like Isi? And why?

``Unlike the British government, however, non of the Israeli political class seem inclined to solve the core issue - the right of the Palestinians to a viable, independent state``(Written by Jermiah) Unlike the British government Jeremiah It seems to me you have no idea what is going on in your own country then Have you ever heard about Chagos Archipelago? The Chagos Archipelago, is a set of Islands Britain took from the Chagosians and is leasing it for years to the USA for 2 billion $ a year. Even though the Chagosians won in the British High Court, the British Government does not allow them to return to their Islands, and to keep them off the Island the Blair Government used the last trick in the monarchy book, they went to the Queen to rubber stamp them a ROYAL DECREE. One that would overrules the decision of the High Court. One that will evict them for ever. The British and Americans are all on it. Do the British or American people even care? Apparently, NOT! What have you to say about your British Political Class Now, Jeremiah! P/S As for the Israeli political class The Israeli political class, are made up of radical left Parties, left Parties, central Parties, Right wing Parties, and some Radical Right Parties. Every one of them (except for maybe one) wants Peace, every one thinks his way to peace is the right one, some are just more cautious then others, since in this tiny place called Israel there is also an issue of security, as the evacuation of Gaza fiscally showed us, and the Palestinian Authority after the Gaza cup de tat.

Self loving American Jews from J-Street or from wherever else, should have as much right to actively offer their opinions and to exert political upon the actions of Jewish Israelis in Israel as self loving ISraelis should have the right to to actively offer their opinions and to exert political upon the actions of Jewish Americans in America. Imagine if the leader of the Israeli Scouts Assciation, JNF or WZO or whatever organization that is not American, came over to the USA and told American Jews how they should be acting, and then act to lobby the Israeli government out of "love" for American Jews to put pressure on the White House to help the misguided Americans correct their misguided ways?

Gil, are all Jews Israeli citizens?

Just look at Mr. Leibler's claims about the proof that J Street are anti-Israel. They have "opposed Israel's role in the Gaza war", lobbied against a resolution criticising the Goldstone report, and ... wait for it, the final proof! ... they opposed sanctions against Iran. That shows they hate Israel, for Mr.Leibler, and makes it legitimate to compare them to those who were excommunicated. Of course, it is gross mkisrepresentation to suggest that Mr. Leibler suggested excommunicating them. Just as it was nonsense to suggest that those who said that Rabin was worthy of being killed had any responsibility for his death.

A Talmudic tradition is to allow people with opposite views argue their respective cases. I applaud Haaretz for "allowing" this article, quite contrary to the bias of this paper to be published. Hopefully there there will be more of this genre published in Haaretz which can allow one to challenge their views (from the left and from the right) and to spark some real and intellectually well founded debate.

for those who carry out acts of violence against those who oppose the groupspeak/think. Liebler wants them not only silenced but divorced from the Jewish People. He is a modern day Torrquemada, a regurgitation of McCarthy and his perverse views will hardly be effective in silencing Jews who are critical of Israel and it behaviour.

Certainly not an irrelevant so called edJEWkator like your good self sir.

Great article. Thank you for acknowledging how illogical it is to make demonizing Israel the center of one's political livelihood. I'd go even further and start naming people like Norman Finkelstein and Anna Baltzer who seem to have nothing better to do with their time other than criticizing every aspect of Israel in the name of "justice." Well done, Isi.

Potobac indeed we live in a democracy thank G-d so indeed the current government as well as the previous one is not desirable but again the majority choose this government. However, those Jews who are against the very existance of Israel as a democracy with an army to defend its people Jewish and Arab alike. Potobac if demanding a boycot of Israel or to bring only Israeli's to war crime tribunals is 'correct' criticism of Israel I would agree with you but.... it does smell of anti semitism or not? As the Arabs certainly are not innocent. And yet it is portrayed as 'only' anti zionism, explain that.

The most telling line here:"J Street has never endorsed any substantive Israel government policies." But does not J Street support the 2 state solution of prior governments? Its a policy Bibi's government has not officially endorsed. Unless Mr. Lieber means the 2-state solution was not substantive policy, the only logical conclusion is that Lieber asserts love of or support for Israel requires unquestioning fealty for current government policy. Where does that leave the longstanding Jewish tradition of: two Jews,three opinions? Hillel and Shammai could live with disagreement, why not Lieber? After all, Rabin wanted a 2-state solution and was killed over it. I suspect that if Rabin were alive today, he'd offer some choice epithets to those who oppose the policy that was so important to him that he died for it. In this way, Mr. Lieber seems more akin to Baruch Goldstein in his narrow view of Am Yisrael. Hardly a prescription for Am Yisrael Chai in its broadest sense, dontcha think?

If you are over pre-occuppied with your own faults and negativity it is difficult to find the energy and mind space to care for others and understand how they feel. Is this you?

A talkbacker asks: "(W)ho decides what is legitimate or illegitimate criticism of Israel?" Well, the "self-loving" jews, of course!

We hear much about "self-hating" and "self-loathing" jews. But as one talkbacker notes the zionist true believers "who employ these characterizations don`t describe themselves as "self-loving" Jews." I think it is high time that we apply such a label to them. It only makes sense. I will adopt the phrase from now on.

Suppose one believes the current course Israel is taking is wrong? Should one not say anything because anti-semites also say that?

"Or those responsible for disseminating what was subsequently proven to have been malicious libels against the IDF which created the climate for the global campaign depicting us as war criminals - as embodied in the Goldstone report." Mr. Leibler, it's not a libel if the IDF was documented by various human rights groups, including Betselem, to have engaged and participated in acts that are tantamount to war crimes. A libel is something you make up. The war crimes committed in Gaza are were confirmed by Israeli soldiers themselves who testified about their own conduct. Perhaps, Israeli will face a lot less demonization when they recongize that their policies are completely out of line and start making some effort to change it. Until then, you can expect a lot more speaking out by the people you seek to banish from the mainstream.

And in a democracy this is unacceptable because? All that you have quoted as examples have happened in the United Kingdom. Criticism of our soldiers have led to trials in criminal courts and soldiers imprisoned. On the other side of the coin there is a debate whether soldiers can have the right not to serve in certain situations. I have boycotted companies which traded with South Africa, personal choice, free market, my decision my money. Called a democratic choice Boycotting a university which say experiments on animals is unpatriotic in what way? Israelis often call for boycotts in Haaretz for our supposed occupation of Northern Ireland. Not to mention the calls even yesterday for war crimes trials over the bombing of Dresden. You cannot have it both ways. But again I'll ask the question, Who decides what is acceptable criticism and unacceptable criticism?

You'd be surprised how many calls for subversion there were in the 70's and 80's!!! Some calls were valid and some not. I do not believe, however, that anyone accused the critics of seeking to de-legitimise the United Kingdom because the majority of the UK population could ever conceive that such a de-legitimisation could ever occur! (a marked difference to Israeli's who despite nuclear warheads and the support of the west still perceive themselves as the David vs some sort of Goliath) Unlike the British government, however, non of the Israeli political class seem inclined to solve the core issue - the right of the Palestinians to a viable, independent state - thereby allowing criticism to escalate to critical levels. The occupation came before this 'modern' wave of criticism and not the other way round!

I also want to add that I am pleasantly surprised that Haaretz published a column which is not consistent with its own editorial line. There were several blogs claiming that Leibler was denied right of reply to Haaretz articles criticising him. Perhaps if the paper were to regulalry have columns such as this to provide more balance, much of the "anti-Haaretz" campaign would subside. I, for one, would be delighted to see Leibler as a regular columnist for Haaretz.

The article mentions J Street lobbying for Israeli unilateral concessions. It is explicitly stated in J Street's policies that they prefer diplomacy over military action if possible, and multilateral vs. unilateral decisions. There are other falsehoods in this report and others relating to J Street, but don't take my word. You can visit http://www.jstreet.org/page/policy .

Leibler makes his case very strongly. There is a very big difference between criticism of Israel as opposed to demonization and delegitimization of Israel. Those who actively seek to undermine the legitimacy of the State of Israel have crossed a red line as far as the mainstream Jewish community would be concerned. To expose such jews as being outside the mainstream is not Macarthyism - it is as Leibler says, "common sense". No-one is trying to silence them or restrict their freedom of expression, merely identify them and expose them for who they are. The attempt to stifle opposition to such demonizers of Israel by calling their critics such as Leibler, Macartyhites, is a calculated and cynical attempt to silence, bully and supress anyone who would dare speak up and expose them. Ironically, such intimidatory tactics are the only real instance of violation of freedom of expression here.

would go to any extend to prove his unJewishness , who hate his heritage and would like to extricate himself from this unbearable burden that creates an inferior complex in his mind . His misplaced guilt filling is causing him an excruciating anguish . He can't look at himself as a Jew any more . I have seen them all during my life under Communist dictatorship . For this self hate reasons , and in a quest to became equal among equals , they never got there , many became party functionaries , security apparatchiks , and even , the most hated by us , informers . Our sufferings were greatly multiplied be those scumbags . Things did change , Communism is buried deep under ground , but the mentality of a Jewish self-loather did not change a bit .

"I was privileged to know Rabin and met with him on numerous occasions. I remember how he repeatedly reiterated his hope that "the gamble for peace" as he described the Oslo Accords, would succeed. Alas, in the absence of a genuine peace partner, his gamble failed and became the incubator for our current problems." Israel has as much to do with Oslo failing as anyone. After the Nov. 1995 coup d'etat eliminated the only strong-pro peace Israeli politician, opponents of Oslo (led by Netayahu)won the subsequent election and were successful, with help from Arafat, in their efforts to wreck Oslo. The idea that Israel played no role in killing Oslo is a bald faced lie.

``However, the point I would like to raise is who decides what is legitimate or illegitimate criticism of Israel?`` (Written by Chris Linthwaite) Well Chris As you will soon understand this is not criticism, This is beyond criticism, This is what many would define as Subversion! And in order to make it clear why Let me answer your question with another one How about you a British citizen, make a campaign to Boycott British produce? How about you a British citizen, make a call to Boycott British Academia? How about you a British citizen, actively demonize the British state? How about you a British citizen, actively defame the British soldiers? How about you a British citizen, persuade the world to exercise ``tough love`` on Britain?

History has taught us that the best offence is using rethosically the other side common sense, twisting her/his argument, and make sure to delute the context to such an extent that the reader comes out with an impression the offender is pointed out legitimately. I have had the privilege of being in the company of the late Rabin: he was an all inclusive Jewish man, he was so simple as to wonder where is his sophisticate lies: in his belief in the Jewish right for a Territory in the Historical cradle of Israel. he was adamant about our just rights as much as he was willing to compromise with the reality on the ground with practical solution, nowithstanding the rights of the two Peoples. That is what the deligimators of Israel political and territorial existence are trying to annex to the late Ytzhak Rabin; and that is the abnegation of his all works of his life.

Terms like "self loathing Jews" and "self hating Jews" are characterizations used by the right to describe others, nobody uses these terms to describe themselves. Interesting, the people who employ these characterizations don't describe themselves as "self-loving" Jews, rather they focus is on what they're against. That implies to me they're looking for a target to explain the anger and hate they feel.

Delegitimizing the enemy within is a lot more civilized than executing them.. which is what happens in most of the Arab world.

and I can understand his outrage with the perception that fellow Jews are trying to delegitimise the Jewish State of Israel. However, the point I would like to raise is who decides what is legitimate or illegitimate criticism of Israel?

I have read a number of Mr. Liebler's columns in the JPost, and if memory serves they had a markedly more, well, "strident" tone than this one. Then again, I have noticed that many pundits, commentators, what have you, take care to tailor their rhetoric to fit a specific audience; not really a changing of stripes, just a calculated muting. Reminds me of the old joke: "Turn on the blue light, Reginald, the gentleman is desirous of purchasing a blue suit." Intelligent marketing. As for Mr. Liebler; well, as they say in the south--"Bless his heart."

'Abuse of academic freedom' is a contradiction in terms.

"J Street does not support any Israeli policy". To the extent that likud rejects the full application of Israeli basic law that affirms that Israel is a Jewish AND democratic state, minimizing the "democratic" from that formula, likud can be said to be "anti-Israel". I like the dual nature of the Israeli basic law better than the revisionist.

It is clear that this guy intended to do exactly what Carlo and Bradley have accused him of - stifle opposing views to the official line and demonise anyone who engages in the active promotion of dissenting views. In my opinion he is a true McArthyite and has admitted as much. His blending of government policy and the legitimacy of the state is a tired play to the angst that seems to permeate modern Israel and which is driving the state's drift to the right and, in my opinion, 'far' right.

Agree with Ron. Even if you are liberal, there are limits to what remains legitimate within mainstream Jewish community. If you want to call israel an apartheid state, fine. But then your agenda is anathema to the Jewish people and you should not falsely present yourself as representing a mainstream Jewish viewpoint. So if you feel that israel is illegitimate, feel free to say so - but don't cynically use your coincidental Jewish ethnicity to try to falsely and fraudulently give more weight to your anti Jewish and anti israel views.

The jewish community for time immermorial have prided themselves in their constant discourse. The most important thing is to constantly question. sensless feelings of alleigance lead to stagnance and regression. Whether through questioning your support for Israel strengthens or the way round, so be it.

I commend Isi for this article. For the Jewish community to give credance to those that wish to destroy it just because they are Jews is idiotic. Freedom of speech not withstanding, just because someoneis a JEw does not mean they have the interests of the Jewish people at heart. There have been kapos throughout Jewish history and the modern day ones should be condemned just as they have been in the past. Poltiical correctness is going to be the death of the west. Unfortunately it is the Jews who are leading the way and it is Israel that they wish to destroy first.

Leibler's criticisms of J Street arouse hostility because he denies J Street's pro-Israel nature. For him, because they disagree with his opinions in Israeli politics, they must be like "Jewish communists who supported state sponsored Soviet anti-Semitism". But he conveniently ignores that he sides with only one faction in internal Israeli politics. And he is willing to ignore truth in order to say this- for to say that J Street are trying to undermine the Jewish state is a complete lie. They seek what they believe is best for Israel- just not what he thinks is best for Israel.

Leibler brings common sense and intellectual integrity, wiping away the pernicious fluff of those who mislead and distort the facts for cheap politicking. Hopefully more Leibler articles in the future.

Sadly there is an increasing trend if you like to delegitimize ALL critizism of Israel as either ignorant, disingenious, biased or down-right anti-semitic. The message currently coming from Israel is we are above and beyond critizism. It's ALL malicious. Either you are with us without one drop of critic OR you are against us and thus an enemy. There is only black and white, no gray!

Isi, do not become too defensive of our correct opinions. The time has come to tell the truth that Jews can damage their own community and endanger Jewish live by their collaboration with anti semites, especially when they are invited to forums as so-called representatives of Israel. Forums which call for boycots of Israel or anti semitic cartoons in UK news papers which win awards due to the fact that some Jews claim them not to be anti semitic. Isi good and brave of you to tell the truth... Jews are active collaborators to notorious anti semites and we all know that anti semitism kills Jews in the end.

impassioned defense for what read like fascist screed in jpost... sorry, my bad .. i missed the hair he split completely! ("I didn't mean excommunicate the legitimate critics, only the ILlegitimate critics!") what isi seems to forget is that some folks might not see the difference he so subtly draws... in the end, with talk like his, inevitably there will be blood...