News » November 11, 2009

Jews on J Street

A new liberal Washington lobby comes of age at its first annual conference.

By Ralph Seliger

National Security Adviser James L. Jones addresses the J Street Conference in Washington, D.C., on October 27, 2009. Jones spoke on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the role of the U.S. in helping resolve it.

J Street's 'pro-Israel, pro-peace' agenda is attacked from the center and left, as well as the right.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The 18-month old liberal “pro-Israel, pro-peace” Washington lobby, J Street, went into its first annual conference with huge momentum and a major news spotlight that only grew with the event itself. Expecting 1000 participants, its venues overflowed at Washington’s Grand Hyatt Hotel with an announced total of 1,500 registrants. Most sessions were mobbed; this reporter was closed out of one and twice could hardly find a piece of wall to lean on, let alone a seat.

J Street has grown from a founding staff of four to 30 today. It absorbed the student-oriented Union of Progressive Zionists (founded by left-Zionist groups several years ago) as its youth arm and renamed it “J Street U.” About 250 J Street U activists had just concluded its national meeting and were very much in evidence at the larger event.

In the weeks prior to the conference, J Street completed negotiations to ally with Brit Tzedek V’Shalom (the Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace), which has a “grassroots” following in 30 local chapters. It will serve J Street as its field arm, with a possible name change.

Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street’s founder and executive director, delineated the group’s three major objectives as: upholding the “right of the Jewish people to a state in the land of Israel,” the “right of Palestinians to a state of Palestine,” and that “the U.S. should help.” He spoke of being “pro-Israel, not anti-somebody else.” The conference frequently echoed with words about “inclusiveness,” “widening the tent” and how being “pro-Israel” requires being “pro-Palestine.”

J Street designated approximately 20 peace-oriented Zionist or human rights organizations in the United States and Israel as “partners,” with a number presiding over concurrent breakout sessions, on such issues as settlements in occupied territories and Israel’s social problems. Among the more than 100 speakers listed were a number of Arab-American community leaders, Palestinians from the territories, and the Jordanian ambassador.

The “host committee” of 160 members of Congress dropped to 148, due to alarms raised by The Weekly Standard and Commentary on J Street’s alleged anti-Israel positions, and the refusal of Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, to attend. The Israeli embassy’s press statement explained that it “has been privately communicating its concerns over certain policies of the organization that may impair the interests of Israel.” The most prominent of the six Democrats scared off were New York’s two Senators, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand; of seven Republicans, all but one dropped out—Rep. Boustany of Louisiana, who appeared on a panel with three Democratic House colleagues.

But both Israel’s head of state, President Shimon Peres, and the leader of the parliamentary opposition, Kadima party chair Tzipi Livni, sent friendly greetings. And a number of former and current members of the Knesset from the Kadima, Labor and Meretz parties spoke on various panels.

J Street received the apparent support of the White House, with a speech by National Security Adviser James L. Jones emphasizing how President Obama shares J Street’s stand for the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel as the firmest guarantee of Israel’s security. While Obama appeared personally at last year’s AIPAC conference, it must be regarded as a coup that his 4th ranking foreign affairs official (after Obama, Biden and Clinton) was allowed by the White House to deliver what J Street, the new kid on the block, billed as the keynote address.

Yet J Street’s nuanced “pro-Israel, pro-peace” agenda is attacked from the center and left, as well as the right. At a packed plenary session, Ben-Ami politely debated Rabbi Eric Yaffie, an otherwise liberal Reform Jewish leader who had criticized J Street’s opposition to Israel’s recent Gaza offensive and its preference for diplomacy over sanctions regarding Iran and the nuclear issue. They also differed on the Goldstone Report, with Ben-Ami favoring an independent commission in Israel to investigate allegations of “war crimes” in Gaza—as called for by Deputy Prime Minster Dan Meridor, and like the one that forced Ariel Sharon to resign as defense minister for “indirect responsibility” for the massacre of Palestinian civilians at two refugee camps near Beirut in 1982.

Two days prior to the conference, journalist Jeffrey Goldberg published on his blog at The Atlantic website a transcript of his contentious phone conversation with Ben-Ami. Goldberg, a proponent of the war in Iraq, had chastised Ben-Ami for not “renouncing” support from Stephen Walt, co-author with John Mearsheimer of a book that blames the “Israel Lobby” for that conflict. While Ben-Ami sees their thesis as resembling “conspiracy theories contained in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” he wouldn’t renounce Walt because this “smacks of witch-hunts and thought-police.”

Still, in defending his pro-Israel credentials with Goldberg, Ben-Ami’s words became fodder for critics on the left-wing blogosphere—such as Max Blumenthal, Helena Cobban, Philip Weiss and Richard Silverstein—whom Ben-Ami actually accommodated at the conference with a room for an unofficial panel discussion during the first day’s lunch break (J Street even supplied them, as it did all participants that day, with free food and drinks). He drew the bloggers’ ire in part by saying to Goldberg: “I hope we get attacked from the left because I would characterize J Street as the mainstream of the American Jewish community.”

Ben-Ami would argue that if he can show the president and Congress of the United States that most American Jews support a strong and consistent effort to end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians through diplomacy, this helps everyone in the end.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!
• Or win a subscription to In These Times by taking this short survey!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

  What is 6 - 3?  

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  While J Street is certainly evidence that Jewish elements of the Israel Lobby are not monolithic, it was more than a little disconcerting that J Street’s first significant act since “coming of age” was to SUPPORT the shameful House Resolution condemning the Goldstone Report on Gaza, and implicitly Judge Goldstone himself.  See: 

  http://www.jstreet.org/blog/?p=702

  “Even as the U.N. was about to consider the report, the House measure called it “irredeemably biased and unworthy of further consideration or legitimacy.”  And it urged the Obama Administration to “strongly and unequivocally oppose” any discussion of it at the UN.  This reflexive attitude that Israel can do no wrong is morally bankrupt and exceedingly unhelpful in resolving, in a just manner, the conflict between Israel and Palestinians.”

  This quote is from an excellent article by Matthew Rothschild in the Progressive entitled “House Shames Itself on Goldstone Report.”  For the full article, and the powerful statement of Rep. Dennis Kucinich denouncing the vote on the House Floor, See:

  http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/11/04-13

  The Goldstone Report and the House resolution shamefully attacking it were not just academic exercises.  They were about meaningful accountability for possible war crimes.  “Nuanced” is not the word that should come to mind when addressing what Judge Goldstone said happened in Gaza.  It is the lack of any meaningful accountability for crimes committed against the Palestinians all these years that has created a mindset in some Israelis that killing Palestinians is no worse than killing “ants” (actual quote from an IDF soldier in Gaza).  See:

  http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4747/aiding_and_abetting_war_crimes/
   
  History has demonstrated that covering for such atrocities is not a recipe for encouraging good behavior, but instead will further contribute to the beastial mindset exhibited by the IDF regarding Palestinian civilian casualties in Gaza.  J Street’s support of the House Resolution, and its belief that Israel can or will meaningfully investigate and/or punish war crimes, is not only not borne out by past practice, but is actually counter-productive to finding a just solution to the conflict.

  Other disagreements notwithstanding, one would think that at least on the issue of possible war crimes accountability, the “liberal, pro-peace” J Street would have opposed this House Resolution (or at least abstained).  Here then, as I’ve said before, is more proof that neither the U.S. government, nor the so-called Zionist “left,” will be the ones that take the lead in bringing about a change in Israeli behavior, and that it will take meaningful and aggressive boycott efforts like BDS to do so.

  Posted by Imran on Nov 18, 2009 at 2:45 PM

  Imran’s link to J Street’s site does not support the position that he claims. It supports an independent Israeli investigation (as called for by Goldstone himself). Independent commissions have been quite harsh with Israeli government actions before, as when one such investigation forced the resignation of Ariel Sharon as defense minister in the wake of the Sabra and Shatilla massacres. This is from the text of J Street’s statement on that link that Imran provides:

  ... We are urging thoughtful amendment of the Resolution before passage to bring it in line with the principles we articulate in our statement on the legislation.

    J Street would support and urges passage of a balanced, thoughtful Congressional resolution urging strong US opposition against biased, one-sided actions regarding the Goldstone Report and the Israeli-Arab and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts.

    J Street also echoes the call of many Israelis - including Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor, MKs Nachman Shai and Michael Eitan, and others - for an independent Israeli investigation into the allegations in the Goldstone Report.  Only by undertaking an independent and credible investigation can Israel ensure that these matters are not left in the hands of international bodies that have traditionally demonstrated their bias against Israel.

  Posted by rseliger on Nov 20, 2009 at 9:24 AM

  The site states the official position of J Street as:

  “J Street supports passage of a resolution by the U.S. Congress calling for the United States to oppose and work actively to defeat one-sided and biased action in the United Nations when it comes to Israel and the Goldstone Report.”

  Despite the equivocation quoted at length by rseliger from their site, J Street SUPPORTED this shameful resolution, and has rightfully earned the criticism it is receiving from the progressive community.  Regarding such equivocation, I said:

  “J Street’s support of the House Resolution, and its belief that Israel can or will MEANINGFULLY investigate and/or punish war crimes, is not only not borne out by past practice, but is actually counter-productive to finding a just solution to the conflict [emphasis added].”

  For example, on Gaza, “the IDF carried out five of its own investigations, concluding that it ‘operated in accordance with international law’ and that the small number of questionable incidents that did occur were ‘unavoidable and occur in all combat situations.’  HRW deems these investigations ‘not credible’ and has called on the Israeli government to cooperate with a comprehensive UN investigation led by the former chief prosecutor of the international war crimes tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, Richard Goldstone.  Thus far, Israel has opted not to participate.”  For the full article by Frida Berrigan on this website, see:

  http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4747/aiding_and_abetting_war_crimes/

  History has demonstrated that there exists neither the will nor desire to MEANINGFULLY investigate such crimes by Israel.  Most Israeli leaders have made it abundantly clear (now and in the past) that that there will never be anything more than show-investigations regarding possible war crimes, and in those egregious instances that simply cannot be covered up, there will be nothing more than wrist-slapping handed out as punishment (rseliger’s Ariel Sharon example ironically being the perfect example here, of a man being forced to “resign” as “punishment,” only to later become Prime Minister in 2001 - man, they’re tough on war crimes in Israel).  J Street’s belief that this will somehow magically change after 50 years is either hopelessly misguided, or a cynical ploy to derail the first credible possibility of meaningful accountability for war crimes in decades. 

  This commonly accepted belief, that there has been a complete LACK of any meaningful accountability, is shared by Judge Goldstone himself:

  “A culture of impunity in the region has existed for too long,” Goldstone told the UNHCR when presenting his report.  “The lack of accountability for war crimes and possible war crimes against humanity has reached a crisis point.”

  http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/10/08-5

  Knowing this past Israeli modus-operandi, as well as the meaningless punishments handed out by “independent Israeli investigations” (evidenced by what “happened” to Ariel Sharon, and a continuing belief by Israeli leaders and the IDF that they can continue to act with impunity), J Street’s support of this House Resolution (along with its meaningless equivocation about supporting such “independent Israeli investigations”), is disconcerting at best. 

  It demonstrates, in my opinion, that the so-called Zionist “left” will not be the ones taking the lead in changing Israeli behavior, but will instead continue to act as its protector and enabler.  Changing such behavior, which is the first step toward a just and lasting peace, will instead require meaningful international investigations and/or prosecutions for possible war crimes.  As stated earlier,, and implicitly recognized even by J Street itself (see last sentence of J Street’s equivocation), it should be noted that Israel has invited this upon itself with its steadfast refusal to conduct such credible or meaningful investigations in the past.

  Posted by Imran on Nov 20, 2009 at 1:41 PM

  J Street’s equivocation on this fundamental issue of war crimes in Gaza has made it the subject of much criticism on the net, but the best one is an acticle entitled “J Street Opposes, Then [Sorta] Supports Congressional Attack on Goldstone.”  The quote that stands out is:

  “...when people began calling them [J Street] saying that it appeared J Street was calling for a ‘No’ vote on HR 867, the group released the following ‘clarification:’

  J Street supports passage of a resolution by the U.S. Congress calling for the United States to oppose and work actively to defeat one-sided and biased action in the United Nations when it comes to Israel and the Goldstone Report.  We are not urging members of Congress to oppose H. Res. 867.  We are urging thoughtful amendment of the Resolution before passage to bring it in line with the principles we articulate…

  Though this statement does support an independent Israeli investigation of Cast Lead (which is also what Goldstone calls for) the comment saying the group doesn’t oppose a yes vote disappoints.”

  For the full article, see:

  http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/10/30/j-street-supports-hou use-attack-on-goldstone/

  If J Street feels that it must equivocate, or be “nuanced’ about international investigations regarding war crimes (believing that Israel can or will now magically start to meaningfully investigate itself, after all these years of failing to do so), then it is respectfully submitted that it more a hinderance to, than an advocate of, a just and lasting peace.

  Posted by Imran on Nov 20, 2009 at 3:24 PM

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also featured INSIDE CUBA: From Fidel to Raúl
INSIDE CUBA: We’re Bad Cuz Nobody Loves Us, Nobody Loves Us Cuz We’re Bad
Out of Control

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Ralph Seliger

• Agora Phobia
  A new film about ancient religious conflict resonates, but fails at the box office. morePosted on July 23, 2010
• Beyond the Occupation: Palestine and the Two-State Solution
  Arab-American activist Hussein Ibish recognizes the injustice Palestinians experience daily—and Israel's right to exist. morePosted on July 6, 2010
• Nazis vs. Nature
  A new film dramatizes a 1936 mountain-climbing contest--and prefigures the horrors of World War II. morePosted on January 27, 2010
• Should Neve Gordon Be Punished?
  An Israeli professor's support for the Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions (BDS) movement sparks controversy. morePosted on October 12, 2009
• Einstein and Israel
  The great scientist was both a Zionist and bi-nationalist—a fact too complex for the author of a new book to accept. morePosted on September 9, 2009