 |
Peace Lobby Breaks from Left as Conference Approaches |
|
 by Daniel Sieradski, October 25, 2009 |
||
TAGS:
From this Series
J Street, the self-dubbed "pro-Israel, pro-peace" lobby, has visibly distanced itself from individuals and organizations on the left in advance of its first national convention.
As neoconservative columnists and other hawkish pro-Israel voices mount pressure on members of congress to withdraw from the convention's host committee, J Street has taken pains to demonstrate that it is far more centrist than some progressives initially believed.
In an interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg published Friday, J Street executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami took swipes at various individuals and organizations deemed "anti-Zionist" by the pro-Israel right, including the Bay Area's Jewish Voice for Peace, saying "I hope we get attacked from the left."
Ben-Ami doesn't have to hope too hard, as Jewish and non-Jewish Palestinian-solidarity activists alike have denounced the group for trying to cater to a pro-Israel center that pivots on the right.
After the Weekly Standard unearthed some incendiary writing in which the poets Kevin Coval and Josh Healey drew analogies between the Israeli occupation and the Holocaust, the two were promptly disinvited from performing at J Street's conference. On Tuesday, Coval and Healey issued a statement which appeared in the Huffington Post, faulting J Street for "caving to this sort of McCarthyism."
"The right stands by its politics, and practices solidarity with their allies," wrote Coval and Healey. "Too often the left doesn't. And that's why we often lose."
Coval and Healey's missive was also circulated by Tikkun magazine, which itself has grown increasingly critical of J Street since, as Tikkun claims, the group formally declined to have Tikkun and its well-known publisher, Rabbi Michael Lerner, participate in its conference.
On Wednesday, Tikkun sent an email to its subscribers claiming that, "It is inconceivable that J Street could have emerged without the benefit of much of [Rabbi Lerner] and Tikkun's work. To exclude us is not fair to Tikkun and it is an unnecessary blow to [Lerner] personally."
The magazine's managing editor David Belden said the group would nonetheless participate in the conference informally, noting that "Rabbi Lerner continues to support J Street and urges people to attend the conference even as they exclude him."
In response to Ben-Ami's interview with Goldberg, one reputed anti-Zionist blogger, Mark Elf of Jews Sans Frontieres, quipped on Twitter that J Street was "AIPAC-lite."
Richard Silverstein, of the Tikkun Olam blog, who is organizing a luncheon for Israeli-Palestinian issues bloggers at the convention (in which, I hereby disclose, I will be a participant), took umbrage with many aspects of Ben-Ami's interview, notably his characterization of Jewish Voice for Peace. Writing on his blog yesterday, Silverstein remarked, "He is using Jewish Voice for Peace as a convenient foil thus allowing him to say to those on his right: 'See, we've dissociated ourselves from them. Aren't you glad we're not them?' That does a terrible disservice to the legitimate role that JVP places in this debate."
Ben-Ami, of course, welcomes such vocal criticism, as it helps more clearly delineate J Street's position within the spectrum of Israel advocacy organizations.
"I believe that we are at the center," Ben-Ami told Goldberg. "The Marty Peretzes and the Michael Goldfarbs and the Lenny Ben-Davids are on the right, to the far right, and there are people to our left, and we are in the middle trying to put forward a thoughtful, moderate, mainstream point of view about how to save Israel as a Jewish home."
Editor's Note: Jewcy is a media partner for the J Street conference. This piece was not commissioned by Jewcy and all views expressed in it are those of the author.
Saying "I Do" Is the Easy Part
Go out wearing pants, and you might find your Judaism (and your...
Why Do Jews Have Such a Fetish for Pork-Flavored Kitsch?
The Book of New Israeli Food
What if a survivor of the Armenian Genocide donated $500 million...
| Advertise | Privacy Policy & Terms of Use | FAQ | |  | | Comment Policy | About Us | Contact | Submissions |
| Hosting provided by Tilted Planet | ||
veganesther
I am trying to learn more about JStreet and whether it is an organisation I should support. But I can't find a straight answer any where. Do they want Israel to return to the pre-1967 boarders? Does Jstreet believe that Israel should yeild its political and military power to the majority,which are the indigenous Palestinians Does J street hold in contempt those Israelis who don't serve in the military or does J streer agree with them. Does J street support the immagration of the Ethiopians or do they support of cap on all new non Palestinian immagration into the area. Does Jstreet support the secular leaning Israelis, the religious Zionists, the anti- secular Haredim or the anti- religious nationalists or the anti-religious socialists?
Would the present Israeli population of Jews and Non Jews be better governed by Hamas? Hamas now is the political party in power for the Gaza and the West Bank. I am not asking these questions sarcastically, I want to know what Jstreet believes.
mobius1ski
Ismail
veganesther says:
"Hamas now is the political party in power for the Gaza and the West Bank."
Nope. With regard to the West Bank, that would be Fatah.
Asher Weiss
Finally, they've stopped masquerading as an organization that cares for the welfare of Israel: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1256557968276&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
If J Street occupies the political center, as its leader suggests, then Jews and Israel are in big trouble. It is accurate to say that J Street occupies the center between two poles: Those who believe in Israel's unconditional right to exist on the one hand, and those who wish to drive the Jews into the sea, on the other.
Zeevico
J-Street is failing to define itself properly. Buzzwords like peace don't define political policy.
If Ben Ami's interview with Goldberg accurately reflects J Street's views, it follows that J street are more akin to "splitters"--the People's Popular Front of Judea, as opposed to the Popular Judean People's Front--than antagonists. But it also follows that up to this point they've totally failed to get that message out in any competent manner.
If so, what differentiates them from AIPAC is poor public relations and a failure to define and show what their policy. Defining one-self as "pro-peace" is moronic: everyone is pro-peace.
I should point out, Ismail, that the statements you made in praise of J Street--I use the term praise reservedly, because I don't think praise is what you intended to give, other than perhaps relative to AIPAC--apply equally to AIPAC. (they feature in a related J-Street thread--sorry to cross-reference like this). Your description of AIPAC members and supporters as 'troglodytes' simply marks you as prejudiced and ignorant.
Ismail
Zeevico is referring to my calling J Street "benign and reasonable", hardly a ringing endorsement, so he is right that praise was not what I meant. Since the time of my post, though, J Street has become even less praiseworthy, making a number of comments that appear to be designed to cover itself from the right.
So in a sense, I must agree that the policy differences between AIPAC and J Street may be less than meets the eye. On the other hand, its rank and file seem to be to the left of the organization itself. Similar to the Obama phenomenon, in which a rather typical Democrat politician whose attitudes towards permanent war, corporate toadyism, unthinking support for Israel and similar markers of "liberals" are uncomfortably close to those of his predecessor, mobilizes the energies of those whose own leftism is far more genuine than his.
I am no fan of J Street, but my point was that the perception that it might be a leftish competitor to AIPAC was enough to drive more feral Zionists batty.
Asher Weiss
J Street favors the sort of multi-lateral approach to the Arab/Israeli conflict that leads to prosecution of the Jewish state for having the temerity to um, be Jewish. Simultaneously, it ignores real human rights abuses occurring regularly under the totalitarian regimes that are prosecuting Israel at the UN (Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, etc.) Zeevico, if you don't already, check out Tom Gross: http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ He's a journalist who's reporting lacks the anti-Israel bias so present with BBC, CNN, Reuters, and the like.