My take on Richard Silverstein’s take on my take on, oh just read.

Richard Silverstein has a thoughtful post up at his Tikkun Olam blog critiquing my story on how dovish pro-Israel groups might be left without an Israeli constituency should a rift emerge between Iran and Israel.

I don’t agree with much in it, but his arguments are worth engaging — each is well thought out and thoroughly based in reality (believe me, a major plus these days). I just think his conclusions are wrong.

My point is not that J Street and other groups are "out of touch" with the Israeli left, but that for the first time these groups might have to drop their "there are reasonable Israelis who are making these arguments" posture.

That’s fine, as Richard points out — these are American groups, after all, and their most important constituents are Americans, with whom they may be very much in touch. But they have also, historically, cultivated Israeli constiuencies as well; their attachment to views that emerged from Israel’s left is deep-seated. Americans for Peace Now and the Israel Policy Forum were created at the behest of Israeli leftists; Brit Tzedek v’Shalom and J Street were created in part by transplanted Israelis.

If Israel and the United States part ways on Iran, these groups will have to make a choice about, for the first time in their histories, pitching a political posture that does not have the patina* of approval of an important section of the Israeli polity.

And there’s nothing wrong with that, and not in the Seinfeldian sense either. But it will be traumatic, and just how traumatic is reflected in how hard it was to get spokesmen for the actual groups to admit it; in fact, the only person who said outright that it would be transformative — and in a good  way — is a pillar of the establishment, Shai Franklin, formerly of the World Jewish Congress and NCSJ:

Shai Franklin, a senior fellow for U.N. affairs at the Institute on Religion and Public Policy, said that gravitating away from deference to Israeli constituencies may be healthy for some U.S. Jewish groups.

"It makes the conversation more interesting, and once that happens you’ll find more people getting involved, from the right and left," he said.

In other words, take away the reflexive deference to an Israeli political camp and more Jews might get involved, and that’s not a bad thing.

Richard makes an excellent point about the Israeli left being reduced, basically, to a rump, and it’s one I should have raised. Groups like J Street have arisen precisely because American Jews trend liberal; as that trend has, in recent years, devolved into a squeak in Israel, American Jews — I think — are likelier to shape their own Middle East policies; Iran could be the testing ground.

I don’t think I’m wrong when I say President Obama, like Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, wants to confront Iran, and soon. I don’t mean bomb the crap out of, I don’t mean starve (and neither, by the way, do Bibi or Obama), I mean "confront," as in, let’s get this denuclearization party started. "Soon" because Obama moved up the confrontation from December to this month.

(About whether to use the term "left" or "liberal," both usages are essentially meaningless and I fall back on them as relative descriptors only to keep my articles from running on forever.)

Finally, Richard says this:

The idea that American Jews will also fall into line behind Israel because there will be no American Jewish groups besides J Street supporting the U.S. administration’s deal is also arguable. If 80% of Jews voted for Obama they aren’t all (or even most) going to abandon him because he has a disagreement with Bibi. 

I’m not at all sure "American Jews will also fall into line behind Israel," and it’s not what I was suggesting at all. Steven Spiegel, the IPF scholar I spoke to, does not think so:

"The Iran difference is part of a differentiation that has got to be addressed," he said. "At some point there has to be a serious dialogue between American Jews and Israel and the Obama administration and Israel."

My original story ran twice as long, and I had to cut it for space. But I included within it Rabbi David Saperstein’s reaction to frustrations I’ve heard from Israelis that, when they tour the United States, they see synagogues draped with "Save Darfur" banners, but none reading "Stop Iran."

Saperstein had also heard this complaint and audibly rolled his eyes over the phone when I put this to him. He said this had to do with the Iran issue not being reducable to a banner-length slogan more than anything else.

I’m not so sure. The most recent American Jewish Committee Poll showed a plurality of American Jews (47 to 42 percent) opposing military action to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions. American Jews opposed the Iraq War more than any other religious grouping except for black Protestants; one of its aftereffects, I think, has been wariness about ratcheting up the stakes with Iran.

If Iran emerges as an issue between Israel and the United States it will be interesting area for a Jewish journalist to cover. In the Chinese sense of interesting, to be sure, but I can’t say I won’t be fascinated.

*Ps! Lots of Ps!