Andrew Sullivan and intellectual consistency should be a "don’t go there" moment, but I won’t, because, as I’ve said in the past, I see his ability to change his mind as an overall good, although sometimes you need an app to track where he is when.
But given his peregrinations, on the Iraq War, on Israel, on race, I’m not sure he’s in a position to take pot shots at others for changing their minds within 18 months, as he does here, ostensibly targeting Jamie Kirchick for his treatment of John Hagee.
But more to the point, I see nothing inconsistent between Kirchick’s two statements; in the first, in February 2008, Kirchick says Hagee is a bigot (I’m not sure I agree, but that’s beside the point); in the second, he says the Iranian government peddles a far more dangerous bigotry.
Why are those thoughts mutually exclusive?
That Kirchick describes Hagee as a stalwart defender of Israel doesn’t get Sullivan off the hook; Kirchick’s allegation is that J Street prefers to target Hagee over Iran, not that it should abjure criticizing Hagee.
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
