J Street: Criticism of Israel does not make us the enemy

[shergald]

A lot of people could learn a lesson from J Street. These comments from J Street apparently come in the wake of Israel's Foreign Ministry snub of a congressional visit backed by J Street.

February 20, 2010

"The attitude of Israeli politicians and U.S. right-wing Jews toward anyone critical of Israel has to change, director of the left-leaning U.S. lobby J Street, Jeremy Ben-Ami, told Haaretz in an interview on Thursday.

According to Ben-Ami, "A part of the Jewish community in the United States and some people here are intolerant of people who disagree with them or criticize them.

"And that intolerance immediately flips to 'you are anti-Israel - you're a Muslim lover or you're Muslim,'" he told Haaretz in an interview. "These are things that they call me, and this is what some of them call the president. It has to change both in the politics here and in the right wing of the American Jewish community."

Read on: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1150918.html

[Donald Ian Rankin]

1. Does not make you whose enemy?

I think it's fairly clear that J Street and the current Israeli government are enemies, just as in the UK Labour and the Tories are enemies and by extension groups like the Unions and the CBI are enemies of one party or another.

What J Street are not is enemies of Israel, the state.

But I think it's somewhat naive to be surprised that a government - especially the current Israeli government - acts to represent itself as a partisan group, rather than the country it governs. Contemptuous, yes, but not surprised.

[shergald]

2. No disagreement here.

THe Likud government is the most right wing extremist group that ever ruled Israel, more so than in 1996.

Imagine having a PM who advocates for continuing the military occupation of another people, while it continues to colonize their lands, knowing that it can only lead to Israel becoming a formal Apartheid state. At least the war criminal Barak was willing to declare in a speech at the recent Herzilya Conference that Israel must make peace with the Palestinians or become an Apartheid state. "Peace" is vague but "Apartheid" is not. It tells us what that peace must entail.

And imagine having a racist foreign minister in place who advocates for the ethnic cleansing by transfer of Israeli citizens who are not Jewish. I'm certain that most liberal Jews cring at the idea, but it is still out there.

[LeftishBrit]

6. They are pretty extreme and nasty, especially with some coalition partners worse than the Likud

'Imagine having a PM who advocates for continuing the military occupation of another people'

Unfortunately, after Blair, I don't need to imagine it.

'And imagine having a racist foreign minister in place'

I still have vivid memories of your racist Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee a few years ago, Jesse Helms. Sadly, it's a problem in too many places!

No excuse for Nutty and his nutty government; but we have to fight against the Right on many fronts and too often at home.

[LeftishBrit]

4. I agree that they are enemies of the RW government, not the state of Israel

I am not surprised that the Israeli government treats them as the enemy. But it's unfortunate that the more extreme xenphobic-isolationist elements of the Israeli government at the moment are so hostile to ANYONE on the left, within or outside of Israel, and demand so much ideological loyalty from Diaspora Jews; otherwise we are culturally 'lost' and politically the spreaders of a 'virus' (Ya'alon's reference to Peace Now). Not a good way of making/keeping friends and influencing people.

[shira]

10. Jeremy Ben Ami of J-Street said that his organization's stance is like Kadima

http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1256557978811&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

I can't imagine that if J-Street was like Kadima it would provoke so much outrage.

Do you believe Ben Ami?

Consider it was Kadima behind OCL and the Hezbollah 2006 war. You think the leadership at J-Street was more or less fully behind Kadima in those instances? Or for Kadima otherwise? Kadima's leaders are all war-criminals to those most excited about J-Street, so what would make them embrace an organization that fancies itself another Kadima (supporter of war criminals and their actions)?

:shrug:

If you believe Ben Ami, what makes leftwingers like yourself (liberals don't count as leftwingers) so giddy about J-Street? It's to the right of the Labour Party that is not "left" enough according to concerned leftwingers. Something's weird here, don't you think? If J-Street came out saying their stance was like Meretz, then I could understand the excitement of leftwingers (even though I believe J-Street to be farther left, SLES, than Meretz which is a much more rational organization). But what's so appealing about another Kadima-like party? Seems like more of the same. Unless something's very wrong here. :eyes:

[LeftishBrit]

11. I think they're more like Meretz (whom I'd vote for if I was Israeli)...

but even if they were just Kadima, they'd be better that what Israel has got now.

I am not a fan of Kadima. And that's putting it mildly. But Avidgor Lieberman, Shas, and most of the Likud, are worse.

[shira]

12. so Ben Ami wasn't honest....which goes to show why many don't trust him and his organization

I think they're definitely closer to Meretz than Kadima, but that's not causing the outrage among most pro-Israel Jews. If they were like Meretz, it wouldn't provoke this much controversy. Don't you think?

[LeftishBrit]

16. Maybe it's Kadima who are sending contradictory messages

For instance, who said this?

"If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished... The Jewish organizations, which were (Israel's) power base in America, will be the first to come out against us,,,because they will say they cannot support a state that does not support democracy and equal voting rights for all its residents."

Ben-Ami? A Meretz MK? No. Olmert in 2007.

Of course, in Kadima the left hand and the right hand, even of the same person, are often not well co-ordinated; and you get very contradictory messages.


'If they were like Meretz, it wouldn't provoke this much controversy.'

Well, considering what a fantastic, ha ha, deep sigh, proportion of the vote Meretz got, I would say that this would provoke loads of controversy.

I should say that I'm not myself speaking as a J-Street member, as being a Brit I'm not eligible. I do actively support Peace Now UK, British Shalom Salaam Trust, and the One Voice Movement.

[shergald]

13. You're absolutely right.

It is highly doubtful that Ariel Sharon could ever create a party that is left wing or even left of center, or center for that matter. Sharon then followed by Olmert proposed partial withdrawal plans (disengagement then convergence) from the West Bank that could only have led to an from Apartheid configuration, with the Palestinians retaining some banustans inside the West Bank.

If J Street supports Kadima, then there is simply no left leaning Israeli lobby group in Washington. It is possible that J Street is trying to be moderate, but certainly Kadima is way right of it if not as extreme as Likud.

Look to the true peace activist orgs like Jewish Voice for Peace or Peace Now perhaps for distinctly Jewish run groups that are left wing.

[aquart]

3. "J Street"? Are these the religious fanatics who like adultery?

Or is that another initial street organization? All DC streets sound alike to me.

[Douglas Carpenter]

5. you are thinking of C - Street - J Street is a pro-peace, pro-Israeli lobby organization

link:

http://www.jstreet.org/

About Us

J Street is the political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement.

J Street was founded to change the dynamics of American politics and policy on Israel and the Middle East. We believe the security and future of Israel as the democratic home of the Jewish people depend on rapidly achieving a two-state solution and regional comprehensive peace. Our mission is to promote meaningful American leadership to achieve peace and security in the Middle East and to broaden the debate on these issues nationally and in the Jewish community.

J Street represents Americans, primarily but not exclusively Jewish, who support Israel and its desire for security as the Jewish homeland, as well as the right of the Palestinians to a sovereign state of their own - two states living side-by-side in peace and security. We believe ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in the best interests of Israel, the United States, the Palestinians, and the region as a whole.

J Street supports diplomatic solutions over military ones, including in Iran; multilateral over unilateral approaches to conflict resolution; and dialogue over confrontation with a wide range of countries and actors when conflicts do arise. For more on our policy positions, click here.

J Street will advocate forcefully in the policy process, in Congress, in the media, and in the Jewish community to make sure public officials and community leaders clearly see the depth and breadth of support for our views on Middle East policy among voters and supporters in their states and districts. We seek to complement the work of existing organizations and individuals that share our agenda. In our lobbying and advocacy efforts, we will enlist individual supporters of other efforts as partners.


The J Street family consists of three legally independent organizations.

J Street is itself a 501(c)(4) non-profit corporation, and a registered lobbying organization, which uses online organizing, advocacy, and education to achieve its goals on Capitol Hill and with the Executive Branch.

JStreetPAC is a legally independent political action committee and is the first PAC specifically established to endorse and raise money for candidates for federal office who support active American leadership to bring peace and security to Israel and the Middle East. In its first year, JStreetPAC raised nearly $600,000 for its 42 endorsed candidates for U.S. Congress, 34 of whom won their races.

J Street Education Fund, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. It aims to educate targeted communities about the need for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, raise the visibility of a mainstream pro-peace, pro-Israel presence within the American Jewish community, and promote open, dynamic and spirited conversation about how to best advance the interests and future of a democratic, Jewish Israel. J Street Local, J Street’s national field program and J Street U, J Street’s on campus movement are programs of the J Street Education Fund.

http://www.jstreet.org/about/about-us

[LeftishBrit]

7. I think she's actually thinking of C-Street

K-Street are the business lobbyists - am I correct?

I certainly prefer J-Street!

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. you're right C-street is the somewhat secretive society of high powered fundamentalist Christians

K - Street is the term used to describe the whole institution of Washington, D.C. corporate lobbying firms.

J Street is the lobby group of pro-Israeli Americans, mostly Jewish who support the two-state solution and a less hawkish American foreign policy in the Middle East.

I corrected my subject line. Thanx :hi:

[aquart]

9. Ah. Told you I couldn't keep the streets straight.

They both have delegations of congressmen wandering around though?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

18. I prefer Sesame Street

At least on that street they know how to play nice.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shergald]

14. GREAT DEBATE: Ben Ami versus Norman Finkelstein.

One might get a better idea of Ben Ami and perhaps J Street by listening to the Democracy Now debate between him and Norman Finkelstein.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUfrLVXg6TM

And please. No remarks about Finkelstein being a traitor or self-hater. He's a decent man, a Jew, trying to save his people from ignominy.

And for humor, just as an aside here, you might want to see Dershowitz talking about Jimmy Carter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w780rYtPt_E

[Unvanguard]

36. Wrong Ben-Ami. J Street was founded by Jeremy; that's Shlomo.

But they are coming from a more-or-less similar political place.

[shergald]

37. Thanks for the correction.

[bridgit]

19. Israel doesn't do *self* criticism, how much less likely is she to do external criticism?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. That's not true. The Israeli right is constantly critical of their government.

If the furore over the withdrawal from Gaza wasn't self-criticism, I don't know what is...

[LeftishBrit]

21. Israel does lots of self criticism. Both on left and right.

On the one side, people like Larry Derfner, Bradley Burston, and to a very marked degree Gideon Levy regularly criticize the Israeli government on the left. On the other side, there are plenty of Israeli teabaggers who are ever ready to condemn Netanyahu for not being right-wing *enough*.

It is true that the RW isolationists don't like *foreigners* criticizing Israel. Indeed they don't much like foreigners at all. But you get that type everywhere.

[shergald]

22. What left are you talking about?

A few liberal writers on Haaretz, which in Israel is not really a major newspaper.

There not much of the left wing left in Israel. That's the problem, and just why they have a extremist right wing government today.

[oberliner]

23. Gush Shalom, Btselem, Combatants for Peace, Breaking the Silence, ICAHD, Peace Now

There is a wide network of very active Israeli leftist organizations that you might want to consider familiarizing yourself with.

I would say the left is a lot more prominently represented in the mainstream Israeli press than in the mainstream US press.

Socialism, for instance, is not the dirty word in Israel that it appears to be here in the US.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. And how much support do the groups you list (and others like them) have?

There undoubtedly is an active and creditable Israeli left*, but the a) number of people who support it is small - judging by the last election, about 10-15% of the population at most; probably less than that among Jews, and b) the fraction of the remaining Jewish population who are neutral or only mildly hostile to the left, as opposed to regarding them as traitors and antisemites, while probably larger than that, is surprisingly low.




*I realise after having written this that when I talk about the left, I am referring mostly to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; on other issues the left in Israel is not doing nearly so badly, as far as I can tell, although it's still taken something of a pasting recently.

[oberliner]

26. About as much support as similar groups have in the US

I would say the left or peace camp in Israel is about the same size as or bigger (percentage wise) than like minded groups in the US.

[shergald]

38. Miniscule then, but growing.

[shergald]

25. I am familiar with all of them.

Example, Gush Shalom. It has about 2,000 members, and can be seen on the streets of Tel Aviv parading from time to time. Since it's beginnings a few decades ago, we have watched as Israel went more and more toward the right wing parties. They have not been very effective. So too, the Women in Black, whose most prominent member of Olmert's wife; his daughter was also frequently on the street protesting.

Jeff Halper, founder of Israel Committee Against House Demolition, made the correct decision, when he opined that Israel is a lost cause, and that if change is to come, it must come from the outside. His org has subsidiaries now in the US and London, and Halper has been on a continuous lecture tour for the past few years in English speaking countries. He also participated in the Free Gaza Movement boat trips to relieve Gaza.

I agree that these groups are valuable (with which the right wing here would not agree), and that we are lucky to have them, but they just have not made a dent in changing the Israeli public. One problem is censorship; they get very little press even inside of Israel. Another problem is that Israel is so right wing, that even the Labor party has all but disappeared.

[oberliner]

27. How would you compare their numbers to their US equivalents?

The US is currently in the midst of managing two wars/occupations that have yeilded large numbers of civilian casualties over the past ten years.

Would you say the voices of opposition to those wars in the US have more or less sway and generate more or less press than similar voices in Israel?

My estimate is that the numbers/influence/press is pretty similar - I actually might even argue that the Israeli voices are louder and more mainstreamed than the American ones.

Imagine if someone from Code Pink had a regular column in a prominent US newspaper the way Gideon Levy and Uri Avnery do in Israel.

[shergald]

39. The left wing in Israel is small, some say nonexistent.

Haaretz may be more popular in the US than Israel (joking), as it is not a dominant newspaper. Uri Avnery regular publishes small ads in Haaretz, but I have not seen his articles from Gush Shalom published therein. Levy is a phenomenon, but I don't think most Israelis read him. They should.

No data re. your other questions or assertions.

[LeftishBrit]

28. Yes! And some others.

Association for Civil Rights in Israel; New Israel Fund; Rabbis for Human Rights; Shatil; Gisha; Machsom Watch...

There are quite a number of left-wing organizations. It is discouraging how much power the right have - but why would the right feel so paranoid and threatened by 'enemies within' if the left had no influence? Why would Ya'alon call Peace Now a 'virus, if it were not spreading its message with some effect?

I wish the left were more influential, in Israel as elsewhere - but it is there and it has an influence.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. Since when has the Right's paranoia had any logic behind it?

why would the right feel so paranoid and threatened by 'enemies within' if the left had no influence?

Because they're naturally paranoid and stupid, that's why. The Left in Israel was gutted by and hasn't recovered from the failure of Oslo. It lacks power and direction, no matter how many great organisations there are who are doing great work...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. Because they're influential outside Israel, I think.

My impression is that the Israeli right is far less worried that the Israeli left will excert influence on the Israeli electorate than that they will influence the rest of the world - especially the US - to put pressure on Israel.

Sadly, I think they're right on this one - the Israeli left does appear to be far more listened to outside than inside Israel, and I think you're probably overestimating its internal influence as a result of this.

[pelsar]

30. i was asked by some j supporters about what israelis think of j street....

i was in the states last week and had a few very interesting conversations with some j street supporters. I was asked what israelis think of them...the answer was 'not much".....

J street doesn't get much press in the israel i answered, they asked me why?...i answered: Gaza. The perplexed look on their faces was most telling. It was then i realized how much j street had in common with so many religions.

They believe, with all of their heart, that all israel has to do is negotiate a pull out of the westbank and peace will follow. When i mentioned the possibility that some kassams might follow, perhaps a few mortars might land on Jerusalem, the Intl airport, a nursery...the answer was clear: no, it will not happen....if i pressed, the answer was that the negotiations will have the proper israeli response.....if i pressed for what might the options be (here i had to really really really press), two options were economic sanctions, UN troops. At this point i mentioned that gaza has been under sanctions since the pullout, i doubt Iran would agree and its highly unlikely that any UN troops can or would be able to stop a two man mortar team firing from an alley somewhere in Nur El Shamps (a refugee camp)....even if they were accepted by hamas or islamic jihad or the PA...(the UN troops being an occupation force)

and then we were back to: it wont happen, not if there are "proper" negotiations. (I then realized that if the pullout was a failure, the reason would be that the negotiations were "not proper"- a conclusion that would put the blame on israel as the stronger party, absolving the Palestinians of any responsibility)
--------

and that is why J street doesn't get much press in israel. They have no plan B or C. Like the religious right, pre gaza pullout, who firmly believed that god would not let the pullout happen, they had no real plan other than a strong belief. So too with J street, they believe with all of their heart (and they are very sincere, good people who just want an end to the violence) that with a negotiated pullout, all will be well and all of the various islamic groups and supporting countries will "fall in line" with the PA....and if iran and hamas and hizballa disagree and decided to attempt a repeat of Gaza....well it just won't happen.

i realized that an interesting characteristic of the religious, of those that really believe, is that they never seem to have a "plan b".....so i found with J street, and that doesn't fly so well with us secular folk, which is the majority of the israeli population.

[shergald]

32. I really enjoy reading propaganda especially when it is put so deviously.

Take just this portion:

"When i mentioned the possibility that some kassams might follow, perhaps a few mortars might land on Jerusalem, the Intl airport, a nursery...the answer was clear: no, it will not happen....if i pressed, the answer was that the negotiations will have the proper israeli response.....if i pressed for what might the options be (here i had to really really really press), two options were economic sanctions, UN troops. At this point i mentioned that gaza has been under sanctions since the pullout, i doubt Iran would agree and its highly unlikely that any UN troops can or would be able to stop a two man mortar team firing from an alley somewhere in Nur El Shamps (a refugee camp)....even if they were accepted by hamas or islamic jihad or the PA...(the UN troops being an occupation force)"

It assumes along with its Israeli propagandist source, that if Israel pulls out of the West Bank, the Palestinians will follow with mortars and proabably rockets, if I may add that.

Ergo: the obvious conclusion is that Israel should never pull out of the West Bank, indeed, should probably take a big hunk of it, and leave IDF troops in place surrounding the Palestinians to prevent mortar attacks. Well, isn't that just what Netanyahu has promised, in addition to taking the Jordan Valley, the borders, and leaving all settlements intact, and East Jerusalem, if I may add to this scenario.

So if Israel makes peace with the Palestinians and ever pulls out of the West Bank, it will be helter-skelter in Israel. How nice.

I love propaganda like this: so obvious yet tries to be subtle at the same time.

[Shaktimaan]

33. and thus we have the crux of the conflict.

There are no easy solutions.

In keeping with what pelsar was saying, there used to be a very sizable left-wing contingent in Israel that stood firmly behind the land for peace idea. The events following the Gaza withdrawal deflated them. Which is also why left-wing groups you mentioned like Gush Shalom are having so much trouble changing popular Israeli sentiments... there hasn't been any real new thinking on the left other than what was already tried, and perceived to fail, (or fail enough that the danger would not be worth the risk.)

Of course you are right too. This excuse is now very popular among the right wing sort to use as a cudgel to beat back any kind of idealistic notions of disengagement. But it is popular for a very good reason, and that is that it is immensely rational. After all, it wasn't for no reason that the Israeli left became so disillusioned with their platform for peace. When their theories were put to a test, they proved to leave a lot to be desired.

So any new ideas that are going to have a reasonable chance of getting out of the gate have to address the obvious problems. After all, they ARE reasonable fears considering what happened in Gaza.

Meanwhile, bringing these issues up has them immediately labeled as "propaganda" and an excuse for refusing to make peace at any time. And the argument becomes yet another exercise in zero-sum gaming.

[pelsar]

34. you can define my opinion as you like....

and feel free to call it propaganda....but your "obvious conclusion" is actually a rather limited conclusion, that doesn't quite fit the other options....

as Shaktimaan wrote....its not "this or that"-the zerosum game...for those with open minds there are other options, but it requires taking into considerations that each side has valid worries, even if you don't understand them...... (I like calling that "cultural colonialization"...where the nice "white westerner" decides that what worries the "locals" is of no consequence and the "great white westerner" obviously know better-your reaction is very good example of it)

[shergald]

40. As a matter of speaking....yes we have to move onto Apartheid and begin its discussion.

[pelsar]

43. you dont like being challenged do you....

i noticed a distinct lack of ability to carry on a discussion when being challenged......and by calling the challenges "propaganda" you let yourself have an easy out, by not having to answer.

i guess there is a reason for that.....



and i just notice you wrote about me: Israeli propagandist source......i get the impression that us israelis, in your eyes, that disagree with you, are "less than human"..i.e. a propaganda source.-i always find it interesting how so many nice progressives are so intolerant of those they disagree with.

[shira]

35. so what is your plan B or C?

Suppose it's as easy as Israel just pulling out of the W.Bank and giving the Palestinians what they want.

Rockets and mortars start flying into Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Ben Gurion airport. It's happened before. Think Gaza. Think Lebanon.

Now what?

What's your plan B? Israel cannot defend because Goldstone says 'no can do'? Israelis get no human rights considerations and just have to 'take it'?

What does Israel do? Be rational.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. Do you feel the same way about AIPAC?

Y'know, that they're similar to a religion and they have no 'plan b'? If not, why not?

btw, does AIPAC get much press in Israel?

[pelsar]

42. There always has to be a plan b in a conflict...

Its great to believe in a certain process to get to the solution......at the same time, as long as one is not religious, its worthwhile to realize that, there are many others who disagree with that process and have the power to disrupt it.....and will do their best to do exactly that, and their attempts will have an effect. Adapting to those attempts and modifying ones plan is essential in any successful conflict.

history is full of those examples... The successful groups are those that can adapt to the changing conditions and unexpected events and at least plan for some of them (and have resources ready).


AIPAC gets virtually no press in israel and i have little real knowledge about them (I don't read up on them)..so i really have no idea what their plans are, but anybody who who figures the settlements can expand without a host of unknown consequences has no idea what they talking about ....they just believe in their cause (I assume this is their stance, but i haven't even checked) to the point where its religious in character.

[Violet_Crumble]

44. There wasn't any plan b for East Timor...

There's some things about this conflict where there aren't any plan b's. One of them is that the end result is going to be two independent and viable states are going to come into being. There are plenty of plan b's and c's about how to get there, but there aren't any alternatives to the end result of two states. One organisation I admire a lot is One Voice. I'm not aware that they have any plan b's either about the end result and I don't expect them to. Are you talking about the how to get there part of things and not the end result? It's just that I see the latter as something where there can't be alternative plans...

I hope you had a good time in the US. Were the people you were talking to about the conflict friends and family? It's just that I get the impression that most Americans are a bit like most Australians in that they have a cursory and really basic awareness that the conflict exists, but beyond that it's all a bit vague....

[pelsar]

45. the plan b is how to get there...not the end result....

since all the bumps on the way can stall the movement and send it 'backward" there has to be a variety of ideas to use, when one doesn't work or there are some 'sensitivity issues that have to be dealt with-(whether real or just "made up") the original plans may have to be modified and answers given to those issues...........the end result in my mind is two states, that doesnt change.

the people i was with were family and their friends who are very aware of the conflict, the details etc...makes for a lively discussion given that in my immediate family we have opinions from the right to the left........and for every "solid argument that i would put forth, my brother (and wife), from the farther left would put forth a rebuttal that was just as solid and a further view from my other brother, from the further right (and we get along-something I give credit to my mother)

i guess i should mention that most of the arguing/discussion was done while we were eating some vegi, low carbon footprint undefined greeny kosher food-as opposed to a barbecued non kosher juicy steak. (my sacrifice to the family harmony)