J Street's Last Hurrah?
In a little over three years, a liberal lobby calling itself "passionately and unapologetically pro-Israel" appears to have either supplanted or co-opted other likeminded groups on the Jewish Left—among them, Americans for Peace Now, the Israel Policy Forum, and the New Israel Fund. By any measure, this is a remarkable achievement, seemingly confirmed by the organization's just-concluded policy conference in Washington, D.C. The event drew 1,500 "pro-peace, pro-Israel" conventioneers, 500 animated college students, progressive rabbis, advocacy journalists, junketeering opposition Knesset members from Israel, and even a welcoming letter from Tzipi Livni, head of the Kadima party.
One need not question the good faith of the attendees, most of whom may well have been unaware of J Street's real agenda and policy prescriptions, let alone its multiple ethical lapses. If they came convinced that they were bolstering a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, that, too, is a tribute to the artful political manipulation practiced by J Street's strategists, who have capitalized on the "fatigue" felt by many liberal Jewish Americans in having to defend unpopular Israeli positions to their social peers, on campus, or in the media.
But what, unadorned, is J Street and what does it advocate? In reality, it is the preeminent Jewish force committed to pushing Israel back to the 1949 armistice lines, no matter what the Palestinians do or do not do. As a registered lobby, moreover, J Street stands apart from other Jewish groups critical of Israel in its ability to raise money and give it away to political candidates who share its peculiar definition of "pro-Israel."
Making no substantive demands on the Arabs, J Street blames Israel alone for the breakdown in negotiations between Jerusalem and the Palestinian Authority. Claiming to support Israel's right to self-defense, J Street since its founding has opposed every measure Israel has taken to defend its citizens. It is against the security barrier that has kept suicide bombers at bay. It opposed military action to stop Hamas's bombardment of the Negev. It abandoned Israel in the face of the Turkish flotilla frenzy. And it had to be dragged kicking and screaming to embrace even mild congressional sanctions against Iran.
J Street professes to oppose the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel. In practice, it has partnered with BDS proponents and shown no scruples about aligning itself with the vociferously anti-Zionist U.S. Council of Churches. Far from repudiating Judge Richard Goldstone's lawfare campaign to enfeeble Israel's right to self-defense, J Street staffers actively promoted Goldstone's appearances in Congress. The organization has even provided cover for the crusade to delegitimize Israel by the UN's so-called "Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People."
In fact, one is hard put to discern any policy differences whatsoever between the stated positions of J Street and the Palestinian Authority or the PLO. Both J Street and the PLO oppose any and all Jewish presence beyond the pre-June 1967 borders; like the PLO, moreover, J Street brazenly prodded the Obama administration not to veto the recent UN Security Council resolution branding as illegal any Jewish presence whatsoever over the Green Line—metropolitan Jerusalem included. Both the PLO and J Street (through its partner, the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement) want to abolish the Jewish Agency and the Jewish National Fund. Both oppose Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.
These positions—they are only a representative sample—may help explain why J Street advocates that the U.S. impose a solution in the Middle East. How else, after all, are the demands of the PLO concerning boundaries and the return of all Palestinian refugees to be met? The same positions may also explain why the PLO ambassador in Washington was glad to address J Street's just-concluded conference while Israel's ambassador declined.
J Street has openly relished the role of domestic enabler to the Obama administration in the latter's pursuit of policies whose net effect has been to harden the already intransigent positions of the Palestinian Authority. But circumstances have changed, and there is reason to think that this year's conference may be the group's last hurrah. Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), a leading congressional dove, has acrimoniously broken with J Street, and he is not alone among his disillusioned peers; Taglit-Birthright, which brings young Jewish Americans to experience the state of Israel first-hand, has rebuffed the lobby's request to co-sponsor a trip; and even journalists sympathetic to its professed aims have registered discomfiture at what they witnessed at the recent conference.
But it is the momentous upheaval in the Arab world, along with Iran's ramped-up quest for the atom bomb, that may prove to be J Street's ultimate undoing. To anyone with eyes to see, no amount of wordplay may suffice any longer to make the case that pushing the Jewish state back to indefensible borders is the "pro-Israel" thing to do.
Think back to the 1960s for a nice comparison. How big was the annual meeting of Chabad emissaries? 0 people. How big was an OU conference? Not more than a few hundred people. Meanwhile, people like Noam Chomsky could draw thousands of Jewish leftists to his ranting sessions. Now look at the thousands who attend annual meetings of orthodox and proIsrael groups supported by the orthodox community (like AIPAC) and look at the one remaining Jewish leftist organization that is essentially a shell operation funded by George Soros.
Pathetic rear guard action is the operative phrase. Demography is destiny and they are a dying species for whom no one will say kaddish.
People can actually disagree with the Israeli government's policies - such as the way it mishandled the Turkish flotilla situation, its war on Gaza, etc...
and be Zionist and fervently committed to Israel's existence and prosperity.
I am, and I am quite well informed and not "deluded" and whatever other offensive adjectives you chose to employ.
This is entirely possible sirs,
without actually being anti-Israel or anti-Zionist, or a self-hating Jews or PLO sympathizers or intermarried etc...
This is called democracy, I would like to welcome you to its ranks, but I am not entirely sure you belong there, since you only recognize the legitimacy of your own positions.
Oh and by the way, when you support those who are antisemitic whether it's the BDS movement, Code Pink, the UN, HRW or take money from that Nazi collaborator Soros who never met an anti-Israel organization that he didn't fund, you are not a Zionist and definitely not committed to Israel's survival no matter what you want to tell yourself.
Yes, honorable people can disagree.
But you accuse Jager, who does his homework and who chooses words with care, with routinely twisting facts.
Please do the right thing, and cite instances, preferably more than one, where he has twisted facts so as to misrepresent what J Street has done.
Absent proof to the contrary, I am apt to think Jager has it right. At a recent Jewish learning conference I attended, J Street principals appeared to play fast and loose on the BDS issue, and when I pointed it out to a J Street higher-up, he reacted by attacking me, not addressing J Street's lending support to those whose aim is pretty much unarguably destruction of the Jewish state.
1) Remember back in 1910 when 90% of American Jews were Orthodox and they had ten kids? Within two decades the majority abandoned Orthodoxy in favor of the many opportunities America offered. In other words, demography is not destiny. Economics matters. Orthodoxy in America and Israel needs to prepare for a collapse. When there are not economic advantages to staying in, your teenagers and young people will go elsewhere.
2) The International socialist Left created the State of Israel. Chabad opposed it. Most of Orthodoxy opposed it. And unless you agree with the Satmars, then stop ranting.
You are right that the Orthodox in Eastern Europe were against Zionism and did not come to terms with the modern world. That is why they suffered the huge loss of loyalty of Jews to liberalism and leftwing causes, especially Labor Zionism. Once upon a time, Labor Zionism was a devoted JEWISH movement that put the Jewish component first and the socialist component second. Ben Gurion was a devoted Jew in his own way and would never have consorted with the Oslo gang if he were around today. He also very clearly stated that no one has the right to give up the claim of Jews to the whole of the Land of Israel, even if it is not practical to reclaim it at the present moment. That is a Jewish statement, not an EU proclamation or NYT editorial statement. He knew where his loyalties lay. And it wasn't with the ridiculous Socialist Internationale, no longer in existence.
What an irony we have therefore, with the unfolding of history. The Jewish left created Israel while the Orthodox (mostly) stood on the sidelines or condemned it, and now the positions are entirely reversed. As the old Yiddish saying goes: Man plans and God laughs.
We can delve further into names, references and definitions, but facts remain facts. Political Zionism was a lifeline in a time when Jews sought their own home in a murderously hostile world, and the politics took many shapes and colors, words being what they are.
Now a question for Shraga: Are you aware of the import of your own question? Equating what was seen as Left with what passes for its sister today is a poor equation, indeed. But such a question serves well the post-Gramscian world view of scholars such as Zinn who have carried the torch of the wrong sorts of socialism, while finding plenty to resent in Judaism itself, as did their mentor, Marx.
I briefly watched the J Street convention today on simulcast. A point was raised that I think sums up JStreet, Shalom Achshav, Oz V'Shalom, and all other pro-peace groups: If the Palileaks showed us anything, it is that meaningful negotiations have been going on for the last 15 years. Thus, said a JStreet panelist, our goal should be to get the US Government, the European Union, the United Nations et al to enforce these negotiations and not play the blame game against Israel or the Palestinians.
The glue that binds Arab societies is hatred of Jews.
A Pew opinion survey of Arab attitudes towards Jews from June 2009 makes this clear. 95 percent of Egyptians, 97 percent of Jordanians and Palestinians and 98 percent of Lebanese expressed unfavorable opinions of Jews. Three-quarters of Turks, Pakistanis and Indonesians also expressed hostile views of Jews.
Throughout the Arab and Muslim world, genocidal anti-Semitic propaganda is all-pervasive. And as Prof. Robert Wistrich has written, "The ubiquity of the hate and prejudice exemplified by this hard-core anti-Semitism undoubtedly exceeds the demonization of earlier historical periods — whether the Christian Middle Ages, the Spanish Inquisition, the Dreyfus Affair in France, or the Judeophobia of Tsarist Russia. The only comparable example would be that of Nazi Germany in which we can also speak of an'eliminationist anti-Semitism' of genocidal dimensions, which ultimately culminated in the Holocaust."
As to the notion of the international Left knowing what peace will "look like" if only enough force is applied to both Israel and Palestinians, how quite like other views of the use of force throughout history is this. "Enforce these negotiations" is an oxymoron, for negotiations which might lead to something lasting means rather the opposite from "enforce" and "force."
One notes that "force" has the operative principle of those who would "enforce" peace as they historically have in the past by so many examples. In such examples with which I am familiar, peace was not the outcome, but rather its opposite.
Israel should be particularly cautious of anything they give up in exchange for guarantees. Before Israel was attacked by Egypt the observer/peacekeepers were removed at the demand of Egypt. The Lebanese Army and the UN forces in Lebanon have permitted Hezbollah to rearm, in spite of US and UN guarantees to Israel that this would be prevented.
Any time the going gets hot, the peacekeepers are told to stay out of the way and then withdrawn.
The sad truth is that my Palestinian Associates and my associates from throughout the Islamic world have no intention of honoring any agreement. To them, any pause is a resting phase on their way to victory. One of my former students, now high up in Hezbollah ,went to great pains to explain to me that the saying “I'll see you tomorrow” means I don't have the strength or ability to take you on today, but as soon as I can I will… So watch out.
I do wish that the world was like the J Street people wish it were. But as a friend of mine said, “when the lamb and the lion will lie down together, I will place my money on the lion."
The simple truth is that Israel as a state seeks its survival, at all costs as necessary.
This makes J Street oddly unimportant to Israel, but oddly important to political parties looking for nothing more profound than money, money and money. Since many have found how much largesse the Arab Muslim world is willing to spread around, it is no wonder that there are those who happily pick it up.
J-street has killed the peace process. Thanks to J-street, the Palestinians (who at least were talking with Olmert, though they rejected his generous offers) have abandoned the peace talks.
” why aren’t all Jews here?”. The reason why is that many Jews pay more attention to what the Palestinians are saying to each other in Arabic. For instance, they claim that they are going to wipe Israel and Israelis off of the map of Israel. They encourage their children to murder Jews. This is not heroic, but murderous. It is not friendship, but enmity. It is not a future for Jewish and Arabic relations but their hope for an end to it. J Street should open up its eyes and pay more attention to what the Palestinian Arabs are really saying. They are singing Kumbaya to you in public while they are planning your demise behind your back.
Comment by Loretta77 on 3/07/11 at 3:26 pm
why aren’t all Jews here?” The answer is what most Jews fear (including Israelis, especially my friends who were previously lifelong labor supporters and voted for Netanyahu in the last election) is a repeat on the West Bank of what happened when Israel withdrew from Southern Lebanon and Gaza. This area (West Bank) is truly a stone's throw from Tel Aviv, our main airport, Jerusalem and other critical areas of the country. While it is true that the overwhelming majority of Israelis and worldwide Jewry would love nothing more than a full peace, that overwhelming majority is also not suicidal.
Comment by Bill Bender on 3/07/11 at 11:24 am
At what point, will human rights advocates begin to critically look at the Arab governments and their oppressed people?
Comments are closed for this article.