MAY 28, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Consider the plight of the American Jewish peacenik. With Hamas in control of Gaza, Ehud Olmert under investigation, and the West Bank government of Mahmoud Abbas shaky as ever, a negotiated deal between Israelis and Palestinians doesn't exactly appear imminent. Meanwhile, closer to home, the likely Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, has said he won't negotiate with Hamas. Under these grim circumstances, what's a Peace Now type to do?
Enter J Street, a new lobbying group and political action committee that says it will represent the interests of liberal American Jews. The organization derives its name from the fact that Washington's road system, in which horizontal streets are named after letters of the alphabet, contains no J Street--the grid goes directly from I to K. Just as there is no J Street on the city's map, the group's founders maintain that the perspectives of liberal Jews are not adequately represented among Washington's pro-Israel lobbyists. "It is time for the broad, sensible mainstream of pro-Israel American Jews and their allies to challenge those on the extreme right who claim to speak for all American Jews in the national debate about Israel and the Middle East--and who, through the use of fear and intimidation, have cut off reasonable debate on the topic," declared J Street founder and former Clinton administration official Jeremy Ben-Ami in a recent piece for The Forward. The group, according to its website, favors "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." Perhaps most controversially, its founder favors negotiating with Hamas. "Should there be attempts to engage Hamas and to find dialogue with them? Yes, " Ben-Ami said last month. One of the other brains behind the group, Daniel Levy, a British-born Israeli citizen and former adviser to Knesset member Yossi Beilin of the left-wing Meretz Party, has been a vociferous advocate of negotiating with the terrorist group.
The genesis of J Street lies in the allegedly right-wing agenda of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)--king of pro-Israel lobbies with 100,000 members and an annual operating budget of $60 million. "I'm not with AIPAC; I do not support AIPAC," prominent New York lawyer and J Street Advisory Council member Victor Kovner said in a press conference call last month. (Other members of the council include Robert Malley, a former Clinton administration peace negotiator who has defended Yasser Arafat's rejection of Clinton's 2000 Camp David peace proposal; Moveon.org founder Eli Pariser; and journalist Eric Alterman.)
J Street's founders are right about one thing: AIPAC is hardly a perfect organization. There are obvious downsides to its reluctance to criticize Israeli settlement construction--a policy at odds with a long-term solution to the conflict--and its relationship with members of the Christian right is sometimes too close for comfort. Indeed, if J Street were merely an organization that took a posture similar to AIPACs on most issues--supporting U.S. military aid to Israel, lobbying for energy and security cooperation between the two countries, backing legislation that isolates rogue regimes like Iran and Syria--but criticized the settlements and scorned alliances of convenience with the likes of Rick Santorum and John Hagee, then it would probably gain a good deal of support from American Jews. J Street, however, has far bigger ambitions--ambitions that, unfortunately for the group, are built on a set of extremely dubious claims.
The movers and shakers behind the organization allege that American Jews, whose political orientation is overwhelmingly liberal, are not accurately represented by AIPAC and other long-established pro-Israel groups. (Full disclosure: Earlier this year, I traveled to Israel on an AIPAC-sponsored trip for journalists.) Some J Street supporters point to a 2007 survey conducted by the American Jewish Committee (AJC), which found that 58 percent of American Jews identify as Democrats (only 15 percent classify themselves as Republicans) and that Jews overwhelmingly trust Democrats on the Iraq war, terrorism, and the economy. "Within the U.S. Jewish community, there's [a gap between] the hawkish views expressed by leaders and 'pro-Israel' activists and the more dovish opinions of much of the community," Gershom Gorenberg, one of the group's intellectual mavens, recently wrote on The American Prospect's website. But the real gap, it turns out, is between the miniscule group of writers and activists involved with J Street and the majority of American Jews. It's true that American Jews are overwhelmingly liberal on most issues; the problem for J Street is that Israel simply isn't one of those issues. According to the same AJC survey cited by J Street supporters, nearly three-quarters of American Jews do not believe that Israel can "achieve peace with a Hamas-led, Palestinian government," as J Street's founder advocates. What's more, 55 percent believe that negotiations between Olmert and Abbas "cannot lead to peace in the foreseeable future." And a whopping 82 percent agree with the following statement: "The goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel." None of this should be particularly surprising. After all, holding liberal views on issues like taxes and gay marriage--or even issues like the Iraq war and terrorism--is not mutually exclusive with favoring a tough line on Hamas.
A perusal of J Street's list of supporters further undermines its pretensions to mainstream credibility. One of the most prominent Israelis involved with the group is Avrum Burg, former speaker of the Knesset. A member of a distinguished Israeli political family, he set off a political scandal last year when, in an interview with Ha'aretz, he claimed that "to define the State of Israel as a Jewish state is the key to its end"; he has also compared contemporary Israel to pre-Nazi Germany. Naomi Chazan is a former Knesset member from the left-wing Meretz Party, which has just five seats (out of 120) in the Knesset. Henry Siegman, a former Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, has compared Israel to apartheid South Africa, accused Israeli leaders of having the U.S. government "in their pockets," and claimed (absurdly) that the 2000 intifada "was not planned by Arafat, but a spontaneous eruption of Palestinian anger."
Moreover, J Street's depiction of the pro-Israel establishment--read, AIPAC-- as wildly hawkish is more than a bit of a stretch. I called Steve Grossman, AIPAC's president from 1992 to 1996, to ask him what he thought of this line of attack. After stepping down from his AIPAC post, Grossman became national chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and he later served as chairman of Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign. Unsurprisingly, the notion that AIPAC is a right-wing organization strikes him as ridiculous. "There are lots of people who are involved with AIPAC, including me, who have always believed that the two-state solution is essential and the deep involvement of the United States to find a solution, however intractable the problems may be, is absolutely axiomatic," he says. He points to AIPAC's early support for the negotiations that led to the 1993 Oslo accords--staunchly opposed by hawks in both Israel and the United States--as but one example where aipac angered many of its conservative supporters. "There were people in AIPAC who felt Oslo was a bad idea, but I'm still proud of the fact that the first American Jewish organization to support Rabin and Peres and the Oslo accords was AIPAC," he told me.
Given that AIPAC and other similar groups already speak for most American Jews, and given that J Street's founders are well outside the mainstream of Jewish public opinion, it's far from clear what, exactly, the new organization can realistically hope to accomplish. Of course, if J Street someday surpasses AIPAC in membership and manages to convince the majority of pro-Israel voters in the United States that negotiations with Hamas are a smart idea, then it will rightly be able to accuse other groups of misrepresenting American Jews. But that is about as likely as crossing J Street on a journey from I to K.
46 comments
Mr. Kirchik's articles are usually pretty on point. Which makes this article a little puzzling. Its a big straw man article arguing that J-Street is outside the mainstream because 1) a poll says most american jews think the arabs want to destroy israel, 2) a guy who was involved with aipac in 1992-96 says he and other he knows of are for a two-state solution, and 3) because avrum burg and some guy who says israel has america in its pockets is an apartheid-state support the group, and therefore, because its so far outside the american mainstream it will fail miserably in its task. These three points don't prove the thesis that j-street is doomed to fail or that j-street is outside any mainstream. Lets look at J-street's mission statement. They claim to support peace, a two-state solution, security for israel, and using diplomacy, rather than military force, to deal with countries like iran and syria. See http://www.jstreet.org/about/about-us. Not sure how saying that a majority of american jews think hamas cannot be trusted and about half think talking to abbas is pointless undermines this general mission. Last i checked, the vast majority of israelis and the majority of american jews support a two state solution. Last i checked its the crazies who want to keep the west bank and gaza (millenialists, religious right). Their mission reflects that. Nothing in Aipac's mission statement discusses support for two-states, diplomacy over war, or anything else in j street's mission. See http://www.aipac.org/about_AIPAC/default.asp. The second point, that steve grossman says AIPAC is all for a two-state solution, doesn't prove anything. AIPAC, during the bush administration, has lobbied pretty damn hard for the us not to require israel to do anything, i.e. pull back roadblocks in the westbank, stop settlements, etc. Its a far cry from Bush I condition 3 billion dollars in aid on Shamir going to madrid to negotiate peace. Anyway, citing a former leader of an organization about his personal view on what should happen in israel does not serve as proof of what aipac is currently advocating in washington about israel. And the facts on the ground in israel pretty clearly show israel has been given a free hand. Of course, the reality of religious parties in israel essentially ensures this, but that's separate from what aipac advocates. The third point, that because one guy with an objectionable opinion about the intifada who has also said israel is similar to an apartheid state supports the group's agenda, the group will never gain traction, seems to have forgotten that Obama is about to be the dem nominee and possibly the president, regardless of his association with the apparently to some very obejectionable rev. wright (not to mention McCain's associate with the objectionable rev. Hagee). The fact that one guy who says something enough people find objectionable supports somebody does not mean that somebody isn't mainstream or can't succeed. That's pretty obvious. Anyway, J-street has just recently formed. An article styled as an obituary seems a little premature. Once we remove the straw, we get down to the real issue, that AIPAC-oriented american jews fear J-Street because they perceive it to be weaker on israel, where weaker means more even-handed. They don't like that for some reason. Beats me why.
- Straw Man
May 10, 2008 at 4:34pm
Mr. Kerchik's articles are usually pretty on point. Which makes this article a little puzzling. Its a big straw man article arguing that the group is outside the mainstream because 1) a poll says most american jews think the arabs want to destroy israel, 2) a guy who was involved with aipac in 1992-96 says he and other he knows of are for a two-state solution, and 3) because avrum burg and some dude who says israel has america in its pockets and that arafar didn't orcehstrate the 2000 intifada support hte group, and therefore, because its so far outside the american mainstream it will fail miserably in its task. These three points don't prove the thesis that j-street is doomed to fail. Lets look at J-street's mission statement. They claim to support peace, a two-state solution, security for israel, and using diplomacy, rather than military force, to deal with countries like iran and syria. See http://www.jstreet.org/about/about-us. Not sure how saying that a majority of american jews think hamas cannot be trusted and aboout half think talking to abbas is pointless undermines this general mission. Last i checked, the vast majority of israelis and the majority of american jews support a two state solution. Last i checked its the crazies who want to keep the west bank and gaza (millenialists, religious right). Their mission reflects that. Nothing in Aipac's mission statement discusses support for two-states, diplmacy over war, or anything else in j street's mission. See http://www.aipac.org/about_AIPAC/default.asp. The second point, that steve grossman says AIPAC is all for a two-state solution, doesn't prove anything. AIPAC, during the bush administration, has lobbied pretty damn hard for the us not to require israel to do anything, i.e. pull back roadblocks in the westbank, stop settlements, etc. Its a far cry from Bush I condition 3 billion dollars in aid on Shamir going to madrid to negotiate peace. Anyway, the lawyers on this thread know that citing a former leader of an organization about his personal view on what should happen in israel does not serve as prove of what aipac is currently advocating in washington about israel. And the facts on the groudn on israel pretty clearly show israel has been given a free hand. Of coourse, the reality of religious parties in israel essentially ensures this, but that's separate from what aipac advocates. The third point, that because one guy with an objectionable opinion about the indifada who has also said israel is similar to an apartheid state supports the group's agenda, the group will never gian traction, seems to have forgotten that Obama is about to be the dem nominee and possibly the president, regardless of hsi association with the apparently to some very obejctionable rev. wright. The fact that one guy who says something enough people find objectionable supports somebody does not mean that somebody isn't mainstream or can't succeed. That's pretty obvious. Anyway, J-street has just recently formed. An article styled as an obituary seems a little premature. Once we remove the straw, we get down to the real issue, that AIPAC-oriented american jews fear J-Street because they perceive it to be weaker on israel, where weaker means more even-handed. They don't like that for some reason. Beats me why.
- Straw Man
May 10, 2008 at 7:27pm
The citation to Gorenberg at the american prospect is a bit disingenuous, because that article, by gorenberg, cits the same AJC study Jamie cites: "The liberal Jewish tilt even applies to middle east issues. The American Jewish Committee's most recent year-end survey of Jewish opinion showed a 46-43 plurality of US Jews in favour of establishing a Palestinian state. Support for the war in Iraq is consistently lower among Jews than among Americans in general. The AJC survey showed 57-35 per cent opposition among US Jews to American military action to stop Iran's nuclear programme." And the article also points out a key difference between Aipac and J-Street on a current hot-button issue in the american jewish community, Iran: "As for Aipac, one of its current legislative concerns is promoting a hawkish position towards Iran. The organisation's website celebrates its role in the passage last year of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, a Senate resolution on Iran. Among other provisions, the amendment labels the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organisation. Democratic critics of the resolution say that it could open the door to the Bush administration going to war against Iran. Nonetheless, 76 out of 100 senators voted for it—meaning it got a majority even among Democrats" J-street makes pretty clear its against cowboy shenanigans with Iran.
- Straw Man
May 10, 2008 at 7:27pm
Mr. Kerchik's articles are usually pretty on point. Which makes this article a little puzzling. Its a big straw man article arguing that the group is outside the mainstream and doomed to fail because 1) a poll says most american jews think the arabs want to destroy israel, 2) a guy who was involved with aipac in 1992-96 says he and others he knows of are for a two-state solution, and 3) because avrum burg and some dude who says israel has america in its pockets and israel is an aprtheid state, and therefore, because its so far outside the american mainstream it will fail miserably in its task. These three points don't prove the thesis that j-street is doomed to fail. Lets look at J-street's mission statement. They claim to support peace, a two-state solution, security for israel, and using diplomacy, rather than military force, to deal with countries like iran and syria. See http://www.jstreet.org/about/about-us. Not sure how saying that a majority of american jews think hamas cannot be trusted and aboout half think talking to abbas is pointless undermines this general mission. Last i checked, the vast majority of israelis and the majority of american jews support a two state solution. Last i checked its the crazies who want to keep the west bank and gaza (millenialists, religious right). Their mission reflects that. Nothing in Aipac's mission statement discusses support for two-states, diplmacy over war, or anything else in j street's mission. See http://www.aipac.org/about_AIPAC/default.asp. The second point, that steve grossman says AIPAC is all for a two-state solution, doesn't prove anything. AIPAC, during the bush administration, has lobbied pretty damn hard for the us not to require israel to do anything, i.e. pull back roadblocks in the westbank, stop settlements, etc. Its a far cry from Bush I condition 3 billion dollars in aid on Shamir going to madrid to negotiate peace. Anyway, the lawyers on this thread know that citing a former leader of an organization about his personal view on what should happen in israel does not serve as prove of what aipac is currently advocating in washington about israel. And the facts on the groudn on israel pretty clearly show israel has been given a free hand. Of coourse, the reality of religious parties in israel essentially ensures this, but that's separate from what aipac advocates. The third point, that because one guy with an objectionable opinion about the indifada who has also said israel is similar to an apartheid state supports the group's agenda, the group will never gian traction, seems to have forgotten that Obama is about to be the dem nominee and possibly the president, regardless of hsi association with the apparently to some very obejctionable rev. wright. The fact that one guy who says something enough people find objectionable supports somebody does not mean that somebody isn't mainstream or can't succeed. That's pretty obvious. Anyway, J-street has just recently formed. An article styled as an obituary seems a little premature. Once we remove the straw, we get down to the real issue, that AIPAC-oriented american jews fear J-Street because they perceive it to be weaker on israel, where weaker means more even-handed. They don't like that for some reason. Beats me why.
- Straw Men
May 11, 2008 at 9:39am
Also, the citation to Gorenberg at the american prospect is a bit disingenuous, because that article, by gorenberg, cits the same AJC study Jamie cites: "The liberal Jewish tilt even applies to middle east issues. The American Jewish Committee's most recent year-end survey of Jewish opinion showed a 46-43 plurality of US Jews in favour of establishing a Palestinian state. Support for the war in Iraq is consistently lower among Jews than among Americans in general. The AJC survey showed 57-35 per cent opposition among US Jews to American military action to stop Iran's nuclear programme." And the article also points out a key difference between Aipac and J-Street on a current hot-button issue in the american jewish community, Iran: "As for Aipac, one of its current legislative concerns is promoting a hawkish position towards Iran. The organisation's website celebrates its role in the passage last year of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, a Senate resolution on Iran. Among other provisions, the amendment labels the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organisation. Democratic critics of the resolution say that it could open the door to the Bush administration going to war against Iran. Nonetheless, 76 out of 100 senators voted for it—meaning it got a majority even among Democrats" J-street makes pretty clear its against cowboy shenanigans with Iran.
- Straw Men
May 11, 2008 at 9:41am
I had seen previous articles on J Street, and as soon as I saw the names behind it, the phrase that came immediately to mind was "the usual suspects." If I'm not mistaken, this is another George Soros anti-Zionist project.
- nbarry
May 12, 2008 at 6:43pm
Whether one supports Israel or not, matters little. We magnify molehills into mountains. We fail to see the conflict is between Islamism and the West, of which the Israeli-Arab conflict is but a recent passing shadow in ultimate struggle which has been going on within the Arab world for over a hundred years only to have been made something of current concern by the passing colonialism of the Great Powers. We can argue point-counter-point for another 60 years and it will make no difference whatsoever. The end will come in only one of two ways (1) if Israel unravels and gives up its national integrity or (2) the Arabs say, as did Chief Joseph, “Where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever.” Never in the history of the world has an indigenous population readily welcomed a permanent intrusion of massive foreign bodies without conflict. Never! In time it will be resolved. It always is, and never is it in the favor of the indigenous population. Therefore, in the short run, to help the stateless Arabs in Palestine, if one truly wants to help them, is for "their brethren," ---the other Arabs who have been fortunate to have been born in one of the few states created in only the past 60 years or so -- to offer to absorb the Arabs into their States. But will the Arab states help the Arabs that still remain in limbo in Palestine? Will Israel be peacefully accepted in the region? After these many years of conflict what would an informed reader and observer expect the answer to that question to be? The issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict comes down to this answer, as I see it: Does one support the existence of the state of Israel and fight to have the Arabs finally come to their senses or does one actively support the destruction and eradication of the state of Israel by all and any means necessary. There is no middle ground that means anything of consequence. Any and all other commentary is unnecessary, even if intellectually interesting. Israel will not be obliterated, except. perhaps, by only a few special bombs. Otherwise, Israel will survive as a matter of empirical fact. Tears may have been shed at the American bombing of Japan, but look at their mutual relations today, and that just in my lifetime! A historian's perspective is perhaps useful here: We are witness to an epochal phase of civilization and one can easily surmise what students will be reading in history books that will have been published in the year c. 2085. Israel’s denouement will not have taken place and treated in a brief chapter and the forces of Arab Islamism striving to conquer, not only in Israel, but in all the other Arab dictatorships since the origin of the Muslim Brotherhood, will be stopped once again, not at Vienna, but this time “at the gates” of Israel. Martin Kessler mdk4130@aol.com NOTE: If you care to see the bibliography of my readings -- by advocates on both sides of the conflict--that lead to this opinion I will be happy to send them to you.
- martin kessler
May 12, 2008 at 10:22pm
Mr. Kessler is mostly correct, except in referring to the Arabs as "indigenous people" of the territory of the State of Israel and the disputed (not "occupied") territories. The Arabs are no more indigenous to that area than are the Jews; massive Arab immigration to the area from Egypt, the Arabian Peninsula, and other areas mainly followed the first waves of Jewish immigration in the late 1800's and their attendant development of the land that enabled it to support larger populations.
- Y Levin
May 13, 2008 at 3:42pm
Israel must negotiate with the P.A. in a meaningful manner. It must withdraw from the West Bank and conduct a land exchange where possible. It must make peace with the Palestinians and allow them to live in freedom. I do believe that most problems the Palestinians are in are because of their bad decision making for over sixty years, and because their Arab brethren abuse them in their anti-Israel crusade. It still escapes me how over sixty years the refugee problem has grown from 1.4 Million to four or five million now ?! Since when are refuges born? This is a novel concept seemingly unique to Arab culture. The reality on the ground is changing. With missiles , terror groups can cause havoc nearly all over Israel, maybe not today, but the time comes when Hezbollah will have that capability, as well as Hamas. Israel may invade Lebanon at will, and Gaza, but this surely is not a realistic future. The state of Israel must spend its budget on education, health and the Arts. As more young Israelis travel they see peace is possible, in this day and age, it will be a hard sell by the government, to encourage young highly educated Israelis to die in the above places because Hebrew-Fundamentalists think they must live in Hebron. Once Israel withdraws, it will have the moral high ground again, making retaliation against possible terrorists more palatable. I am sure that the Palestinians will be glad to get on with their lives and build a working civil society once Israel withdraws, in this we must ( E.U.,USA, Japan,IMF,World Bank yada yada yada) invest. Should Palestine fall to Hamas, Israel will have every right to get tough. But the Palestinians MUST get this chance, otherwise Israel will wilt under the never ending conflict. It is a sensitive sophisticated civil society which has the world to offer, but not as long as it's young men and women are subjected to generations of war, which as it stands, can be avoided.
- Daniel
May 14, 2008 at 3:17pm
It's amazing to me that the following statement is thought logical: "After all, holding liberal views on issues like taxes and gay marriage--or even issues like the Iraq war and terrorism--is not mutually exclusive with favoring a tough line on Hamas." Yet it is, judging by the apparent J Street manifesto, which seems more along the lines of Moveon.org or Daily Kos. Hamas explicitly rejects every tenet of liberal thought and practice. Homosexuals, to take one example, are tortured and excecuted in Palestinian society (thus the existence of groups like Queers for Palestine beggar belief) - yet those advocates of dialogue would seek by that act to entrench in political discourse and power among the most virulent anti-liberal political/religious movements on earth. Besides, the name 'J Street' sounds a bit too hip - trying to get the youth on board with empty slogans and unachieveable promises of a warm fuzzy world where if we'd talk we could all get along. It barely works within the country, let along on in global politics with people that hate your very fibre.
- Adam
May 14, 2008 at 8:18pm
Is Kirchick really holding out the AJC as some sort of objective voice? The publishers of Commentary...? If we're going to follow Kirchick down this road then we note that his poll has 57% of American Jews as opposing military action to preempt a nuclear (!) Iran. Seems like a pretty important issue to me...
- benberger
May 15, 2008 at 4:19am
Kirchick's article seems mostly correct to me: I, too, looked at J Street's web site carefully and thought it was too far left, but solely based on the people associated with it. I agree with his statement that there is no lobby on behalf of the likely majority of Jews who would simply add force to the statement that the settlements are wrong, without legitimizing Hamas and its ilk. But the article left me a little dissatisfied, and it took me a while to figure out why. Then I realized that Kirchick has never spoken directly with anyone from J Street, so far as I can tell. The only direct contact with anyone is with Steve Grossman from AIPAC, who defends AIPAC from the charge of being excessively right-wing by using a single example, and also by being a Democrat. I think that Kirchick could have tried to speak with someone on J Street who would be associated with the center as much as possible, as Grossman was with AIPAC. This seems like a missed opportunity that he did not at least give the organization a chance to defend itself from a clear image problem associated with some of its members. After all, it is for a secure two-state solution, which at least puts its big picture in line with most Americans. It seems to boil down to a question of means to the end, rather than the end. I do not mean to minimize this: how we achieve a two-state solution is very important, as many lives are in the balance. Maybe J Street's members' words speak for themselves. But without any direct response to questions from Kirchick, I feel the article is incomplete and disappointing, and I do not feel convinced that I learned anything new. Rather, I feel more like I just watched coverage of J Street from Fox News. I think Kirchick can do better.
- rlgordonma
May 15, 2008 at 5:34am
Wow, Mr Y Levin has clearly put a lot of thought into this.
- observor
May 15, 2008 at 8:20am
I must confess I am a member of the cabal and I most confess that I have voted to democractic presidents for longer than I can remember. I once heard the arrogant, pompous, Henry Siegman praise the honorable Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah - he was only a crown prince then. He spoke of his piety and great dignity and compared him to Sharon, whom he thought was the most murderous individual that ever lived. I assume that when Siegman and fellow members of the American Jewish Congress visited Saudi Arabia, a visit that he described gushingly as "... an extraordinary experience in every respect," he proudly told the Saudi visa officials that he was a proud Jew.
- Joel
May 15, 2008 at 10:40am
Thank you for a fine piece, Mr. Kirchick. Mr. Straw Man: Don't you see the absurdity of your prime contention? If Mr. Kirchick is just cherry - picking quotes and J Street is mainstream, then there would have been no need for this organiztion at all. Also, what is with the multiple posts? It isn't the result of double - clicking, either, because you mispelled "Kirchick" in your second post. And your third post is repeated in your fifth and the sixth is a repeat of your first and second posts. Also, what is up with the lower caps when the upper are called for? Obviously your shift key works because you start sentences with caps. Very bizzare. Were you tapping this out on a laptop, perhaps, while having a few down on J Street?
- liberal reformer
May 15, 2008 at 11:00am
jamie (mini-Marty) -- I hope Marty pinched you on the cheeks after reading this one! martin kessler, in trying to sum up the whole conflict, you miss an important fundamental principle: a monoethnic colonial settler state is unlikely to survive, and doesn't deserve to survive, if it is forced under its locational circumstances, to lord over another group of differing ethnicity, for whom it has no desire to integrate into its state. This is the lesson of Rhodesia, another Israeli-style democracy, primarily made up of brave, resoureful Europeans. The West Bank is only "disputed" territory if one is open to the possibility that a Rhodesia-on-the-Jordan, populated by Jews rather than Anglo-Saxons, deserves to survive and more importantly CAN survive. If one is not open to such likelihood, then there is only step for Israel: stop lording over non-Israeli Arabs in the West Bank, NOW. Then, take appropriate measures to ensure Israeli security after such a withdrawal.
- white cornerback
May 15, 2008 at 11:03am
I am living in Sderot, Israel. Next to my apartment is a kindergarten. The children their are neither politically right nor politically left. They will not favor a Democrat or a Republican. Nor will they favor one party over another in Israel. The one thing they know, that nobody in J-Street or Aipac or the American Congress seem to know, is what terror is. The children have not lived a day when they were secure that a qassam rocket would not fall on top of their house, or their parents, or them. The one thing that Aipac, J Street, and the American Congress seem to have in common is, "these children don't matter." If I could lobby for the sake of these children, as well as all the children and their parents who live in Israel (JUST NOW A WARNING WENT OFF - BOMB JUST NEAR THE SCHOOL!) I must stop now. America, leave Israel alone. No 2 state solution is going to bring peace.
- Jerry Waxman
May 15, 2008 at 11:53am
Y Levin: disputed - like France? The idea that the Occupied Palestinian Territories are "disputed," not occupied, is a core tenet of Zionazism. Occupation denial is the Likudnik equivalent of Holocaust denial.
- Combat
May 15, 2008 at 12:30pm
What makes you think anyone wants to read a three page article on J Street written by the cartoonish James Kirchick? You have your pick of real writers at The New Republic - you don't need to use this clown.
- Yo, Frankie!
May 15, 2008 at 12:43pm
Jerry Waxman -- "No 2 state solution is going to bring peace." You don't know that because it hasn't been tried. What you DO know, or should know, is that a one-state solution with Jews lording over Arabs does not work. The only other remaining alternative is the other one-state solution, one that gives political rights to West Bank Arabs. EVERYONE should know that such an arrangement is likely to last about as long as "Zimbabwe-Rhodesia" lasted (1979-1980).
- white cornerback
May 15, 2008 at 12:48pm
J Street speaks for me -- an American Jew who acknowledges that the current policies pursued by the governments of Israel and the US are doomed to perpetual failure in the Middle East. Negotiating with Hamas isn't a great option, but at the end of the day that's who represents a large swath of Palestinian opinion.
- Realist
May 15, 2008 at 12:59pm
One must know DC before declaring which streets do or don't exist. There is a J Street in DC,just not in N.W. where Mr. Kirchick tarries. There is a J Street in N.E. Check your map. The rest of the article is likewise flawed.
- TED N
May 15, 2008 at 1:01pm
BloggingHeads - Daniel Levy v James Kirchick.
- this would be fun
May 15, 2008 at 1:10pm
A two state solution in the middle east will only come to fruition when the leadership in Gaza and the West Bank tell their people that Israel is here to stay; that sending themselves and their children on suicide bombings is both obscene and unsuccessful; that there will be no right of return to Israel and that the settlements will lead to an exchange of territory only. As Israel learned after Oslo and after pulling out of Gaza the only thing it leads to is not peace but more destruction. As for Iran, they must not be allowed to produce nuclear weapons. Such weapons would lead to the destruction of Israel and in, retaliation, the destruction of Iran. If need be Iran's nuclear facilities must be destroyed by the U.S. or Israel or a coalition of allies both in the middle east and outside. Israel will not commit suicide. The statement "Never Again" is not a slogan but the credo Israel must live by. As for the J Street adherents they must get their heads out of the sand and face the reality that, at this point, nothing will satisfy the Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank and their allies other than the destruction of Israel. Once the children of the Mideast are taught they will have to live in peace with Israel then perhaps an equitable settlement can be found to a conflict that has gone on since Israel became a state 60 years ago. It is obvious that Israel has survived these 60 years only by miracles by the grace of G-d. The sooner the people of Israel and others realize that perhaps we can start down the path to real peace.
- L. D.
May 15, 2008 at 1:18pm
Finally, with Waxman, reality seeps in. J Street is little more than young liberal ego at play: better to be 'General' in a new organization, than 'Sarge' at a larger, older one (AIPAC). 'Two state solution'?--Sure, why not three (Israel, Gaza Palestine, West Bank Palestine)? 'Two-state' is merely the newest name for wishful thinking to supposedly mollify 'Palestinians' (a name pertaining to Jews 60 years ago--Arabs of the pre-State time did not consider themselves any such local nation, but instead, Syrians, Egyptians, or Bedouins) into accepting Israel's right to exist as a free Jewish state. Please don't hold your breath waiting for this to occur. On the other hand, if J Street wants to talk to Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah, why not? But please, if you talk with them, be armed, talk in an open area not controlled by them, and keep the idea that you may also be gaining information which can be used to find their weaknesses--because, surely, that is the only way to maximize your chances of returning home alive, and not overly wasting your time.
- JBerkowicz
May 15, 2008 at 1:57pm
Mr. Waxman (comment #17), if the West left Israel alone, wouldn't you be throwing rocks at the Arabs? Mr. Kessler (comment #7), it is nonsensical to say the Islam is hostile to the West. Much of the foundation of the West is built on Islam. It may be true that Islam as a value system is (as Christianity is) hostile to the current "greed is good" "more is better" "screw your neighbor" mentality of the extreme form of capitalism that now dominates and corrupts much of West. But is this a bad thing?
- Gaston
May 15, 2008 at 2:20pm
Jerry - I feel bad for the children you mention. Do you feel bad for the Palestinian children, who have died in larger numbers from Israeli explosives? Check out the tallies at "If America Knew"'s website. It is a pro-Pal site, but unlike AIPAC, CAMERA and MEMRI, it relies on undeniable numbers (mostly from B'Tselem) rather than selective quotes and verbal spin. I think J Street is a timely development, and an effort that can not only save Israel from the self-destructive path it's on, but also serve as a home for American Jews who wince at what AIPAC quietly enables, whether it is encouraging war with Iraq & Iran, the inhuman 2006 Lebanon war, and a tacit support of continued settlement building & expansions, something contrary to US policy, a poison pill to the peace process and illegal under international law. We need a more secular, level-headed forum for US politicians to call their pro-Israeli home, instead of supplication to AIPAC, which has been the norm. This article is part of the PR campaign to kneecap that effort. The author is, by his own admission, within AIPAC's aura, and never spoke directly to the principals behind J Street.
- Mark
May 15, 2008 at 2:24pm
There are many impediments to the two state solution, including Palestinian terrorism, the brutal occupation, and the expanding settlements. As a Zionist, this makes me very sad. Because of the demographic reality, we will ultimately have either a two-state or a one-state solution. A democratic state, a Jewish state, a Palestinian majority: pick two.
- David Eisner
May 15, 2008 at 4:35pm
Thanks, Gaston. That's the funniest fuckin' thing I've read in weeks. What a moronic tool you must be. Allahu akbar!!!
- g
May 15, 2008 at 4:44pm
Gaston, so now I understand. The islamists are communists. I feel so much better.
- g
May 15, 2008 at 4:45pm
Gaston: "Much of the foundation of the West is built on Islam." What are you smoking, please do tell. The West is based on Judeo-Christian tradition. Where Islam comes in is . . . well, tell me where? This is not to say that I uniformly loathe Islam, just the elements that remain so completely unenlightened that they'd send children into Israel to explode themselves. Mark: "I feel bad for the children you mention. Do you feel bad for the Palestinian children . . .?" What a sensible and dear man you are. This is an individual you are addressing, not the Knesset. Keep your tacky callowness out of here. Your empathy is fake--and in fact a way to hurt the other side, as if someone like Mark doesn't feel bad. Yeah, I bet he goes out into the street and fires his machine gun every time a Jew dies. Israel Israel targets as best it can. Do they make mistakes? Yes. But there's always an apology, always a sense that the Israeli side is human. They don't tear apart, in the street, suicide bombers whose belts fail to go off. As for your benighted bullies in Gaza, they're more than happy to hit anybody they can. That's what they practice. That's what they preach. That's what they rejoice over. Israel needs to get their insane settlers out of the further reaches of the West Bank, continue to keep a military presence there and in Gaza. Otherwise Israel will never be safe. IF you can figure out a way to guarantee Israel's safety should they negotiate with terrorists, please by all means expound. Otherwise, you're just another anti-semitic asshole. We already know you're a jerk.
- MOLLYSIMON
May 15, 2008 at 5:07pm
You can take all the "pro-Israel" sincerity of the J Street crowd and stuff it into a flea's navel and there would be room left over for three poppy seeds and a news reporter's ethics.
- nbarry
May 15, 2008 at 5:36pm
Good one, Nbarry. I can't say that Aipac represents me, but J Street, from the sounds of it, certainly doesn't. They're philosophy seems to be, "If only we gave them back the West Bank . . . . then they'd stop shelling us from Gaza." If only we give them the entire West Bank (I'm a proponent of getting out of the Deep West Bank) we'd take all the anti-Semitic hate off our children's TV programming." Right. They're either naive or self-loathing.
- MOLLYSIMON
May 15, 2008 at 6:47pm
I find all this commentary illuminating and astounding. In the many conversations I have had with American Jews, I have encountered many, indeed, a majority, who are increasingly uncomfortable with AIPAC's hawkish stance, so the development of J Street seems entirely logical. It merely reflects the diversity of American Jewish opinion, which is still less diverse than Israeli opinion. Clearly it is reasonable to hope for a peaceful coexistence, some day, two states living side by side. Is it possible? Who knows? Certainly not if you never try. And there is no doubt that Israel's aggressive settlement activity, and the oppressive living conditions it imposes on the Palestinians, make the problem worse. it is also undeniable that AIPAC has tremendous political clout, claiming to represent American Jewry, so it makes sense for those who disagree with AIPAC to try to contribute to the dialogue as well. My AIPAC supporting friends appear to have given up on peace, and believe the best approach is to simply wait it out, and continue the present course. Security is paramount, who cares about the Palestinians, it's all their fault anyway, they deserve it. This who disagree believe that course leads to the destruction of Israel, as it will be overrun by the Arabs and Palestinians some day. What I would say is this: Israel can no longer claim the moral high ground. The longer the settlement activity and the abusive treatment of the Palestinians continue, the more Israel digs its own grave. One can never condone the activities of terrorists either, because to target civilians is immoral. But if Israel wants to claim the moral high ground then she must act morally, and not treat the Palestinians like they are somehow less than human. The long term risk in Israel's policies is that Israel destroys herself (not to mention the demographic threat). Most Israelis seem to recognize this, and one hears far more support for the J Street approach in Israel than one hears in the US. AIPAC, on the other hand, has changed over the years, and become far more hard line than it was in the nineties. Perhaps with some competition from J Street we will see AIPAC return to a more balance perspective that truly reflects American Jewish opinion. If so, then J Street will have served us well.
- Observer
May 15, 2008 at 9:28pm
J-Street appears to be an insult to "Peace Now," they're far more extreme. Nobody will take them seriously.
- Scott
May 15, 2008 at 9:55pm
Once again the NR evinces the American liberal's blindspot about the state of Israel. The fact that American Jewish public opinion is not currently aligned with J-street thinking is hardly the point. Political momentum depends on people like j-street putting it out there, widening the debate, and answering the AIPAC spin. If they can build a constituency on the great tradition of left/liberal Jewish intellectual excellence, so much the better.
- Patrick Scully
May 16, 2008 at 5:27am
The overwhelmingly ad hominem quality of both the principal argument and many of the comments suggests the weakness of much of the associated thinking/analysis, if one can call it that. I have spent considerable time in Israel, love and cherish it, and strongly support its security and flourishing. I believe many in the Palestinian and larger Arab worlds would, if they had their druthers (and were not otherwise constrained), do away with the State of Israel. That goes triple for Hamas. The serious question is, what follows from all of the above? Certainly, those who care urgently about the security of Israel and Israelis must think hard (and do more than thinking) about how that objective is best pursued in a very dangerous neighborhood. But the notion that Likud, or AIPAC, has a direct and excusive line to divine revelation on that question is far from self-evident to me. It is not evident to me that the building and thickening of hard to defend settlements in the midst of Arab populations in the West Bank (and previously in Gaza) contributes to Israeli security and flourishing. It is not evident to me that the caging of Palestinians within ugly walls, and the squeezing of their economy and ability to travel within the West Bank, exacerbating long-standing hatreds and passing them on through successive generations, contributes to the long-term prospect of Israeli flourishing. It is not evident to me that recalcitrant policies and actions that alienate Israel from much of the world, including nations with which Israel seeks to identify and engage with, contributes to the long-term prospect of Israeli flourishing. AIPAC's approach has varied over the decades. There were certainly moments, when Israeli policy inclined toward participation in the peace process, that AIPAC was supportive of Israeli peace policy. But in recent years, AIPAC has increasingly developed its own foreign policy, identifying with the most right wing tendencies in Israeli debate. AIPAC no longer supports policies consistent with the center of gravity in Israeli thought, and has long since departed from the views of many American Jews on the best paths to peace and security for Israel. It is still early to know precisely what paths J Street will take as it develops. For the moment, it seems to me more likely to represent a promising path toward the long-term security and flourishing of the Israel that I love than does AIPAC, which has become a n unrepresentative tool of a narrow faction of American Jewish thinking (and money). It is time for a broad based alternative more acceptable to (and more representative of) much of Israeli and American Jewish thinking on how best to secure the future of Israel. I have joined J Street and hope for its success. This is not the time to be writing its obituary. Alan J. Weisbard Associate Professor of Law, Ethics and Jewish Studies University of Wisconsin (Blogging at http://TheWiseBard.blogspot.com).
- Alan J. Weisbard
May 16, 2008 at 1:04pm
Just once I would like to read "Meretz Party" instead of "left-wing Meretz Party." Mr. Kirchick uses it twice.
- Tom Bastien
May 16, 2008 at 1:12pm
"AIPAC no longer supports policies consistent with the center of gravity in Israeli thought, and has long since departed from the views of many American Jews on the best paths to peace and security for Israel." So? I guess Weisbard represents the center of gravity? What the hell do you know? There is no center of gravity in Israeli political circles right now. That's the problem...
- g
May 16, 2008 at 2:34pm
to #39: So? So there is justification for another entity to balance the inappropriate "tilt" in AIPAC's current approach. The two organizations better reflect the range of serious debate than does an AIPAC monopoly. Isn't that what we are talking about? It is not necessary for me to claim that my personal position defines the discussion to point out that Likud and AIPAC are seriously unrepresentative of relkevant constituencies both in Israel and in the American Jewish community.
- Alan J. Weisbard
May 17, 2008 at 12:47am
It is central and grave that spewing venom appears to be more rewarding to the Never Again crowd than realizing neither the past cultural contributions of the Arabs, nor the liberal foundation of their US fundamentalist allies in the life of Jesus Christ. "Why do they hate us so?" should be most obvious by now. J Street flickers timeless wisdom. Ignore it at your ultimate peril. 'The eternal Saki has poured millions of bubbles like you, and will pour...'
- citrine
May 17, 2008 at 12:13pm
Who would think a gay man would be so utterly insensitive? Does ethnic identity trump everything including your humanity? Or is this stuff part of the price of working for MP?
- Marco Ross
May 17, 2008 at 11:24pm
1. If Obama won't talk to Hamas then what was Robert Malley doing in his campaign? 2. If Obama won't talk to Hamas because Hamas works for the destruction of Israel then why does he advocate talking to Iran?
- Leo
May 18, 2008 at 2:06pm
It is easy to pick out a series of actions that AIPAC has done over the past thirty years that favor mainstream Jewish American voters. And it's just as easy to paint a number of J Street founders into a corner by depicting their sharpest actions. But underneath all the hyperbolly I believe there are tens of thousands of American Jews who are rightfully scared about the future of Israel, guilty about what little they hear of the human cost of the continuing occupation, but would rather spend time in a dentist's chair having a root canal then having a wide ranging discussion on the State of Israel. I have seen this difficulty first hand in my synagogue and watched people in the Philadelphia Jewish Community get appoplectic when one challenges an action of the Israeli government. As for Hamas, I met a representative of Hamas who is on the Bethlehem City Council during our recent Delaware Valley Interfaith Delegation To Israel/Palestine. While I did not agree with Mr. Shouky on much, I was pleased to have the opportunity to listen to him on the same day we heard David Wilder from the Jewish Community of Hebron. I hope that Hamas can be lead to repudiate its Charter and into a Unity government organized largely by the Egyptians. But I have no confidence of this. I do know that it will not happen unless Israel enters the conversation....
- Larry Snider
May 22, 2008 at 4:14pm
J-Street is a disgrace, not because of its positions on peace, but because it seeks to encourage the US government to over-ride Israeli democracy. Decisions concerning relative risks of dovish versus hawkish stances should be made by Israelis alone, without interference either by the US government or by self-righteous, arrogant, self-serving do-gooders like J-Street.
- Philo-Semite
July 26, 2008 at 9:46am
My, my. Poll after poll shows that most Americans and most American Jews reject the hardline neo-Likud-style right-wing stances of AIPAC and prefer those of JStreet. Why does it frighten TNR so much that a new group has formed to acknowledge this reality? Is it because TNR won't admit that the US-and-neocon-led invasion of Iraq actually hurt Israel's security, which seems to be TNR's #1 concern?
- Phoenix Woman
October 5, 2008 at 10:32am