I write this post sitting on a bus from DC to New York, coming home from the J Street First Annual Conference and J Street’s bottom line has about as much clarity as this bus has leg space; it’ll do for now but I could really use some more.
J Street is the 18-month-old “Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace” Lobby in Washington, headed by Jeremy Ben-Ami, a former adviser in the Clinton Administration. The infantile lobby has stirred major controversy in the Jewish community, highlighted by the intentional absence of the Israeli Ambassador to the US, as well as some of loony protesters outside the Grand Hyatt who compared J Street to Nazis (The Nazis were after all, Pro-Israel and Pro-Peace of course.)
Here are a few observations about J Street and their 1,500 person conference. First of all, J Street’s creation is a good thing for Zionism and Pluralism, especially for American Jews. It should be clear that’s where this blog post begins and ends. J Street puts a microphone to a voice that has been bashfully hidden for too long in American Jewish establishments. The creation of J Street invites American Jews to think critically and engage with some (but not all) of the same hard questions as voting Israeli citizens. The basic question of what values the government of the Jewish State espouses is one that Jews who identify with Israel must wrestle with on some level.
However, that wrestling has been chased out of most American-Jewish establishments, including federations, synagogues, day schools, etc. This has stunted the sophistication of many American Jews’ relationship with Israel or simply turned them away. There are so many Jews under 30 who basically say they perceived a simple warning. "Though you should question everything, Israel is different. The morality of its conduct is a fait accompli, and any fault in its behavior is a result of International Arab hostility.” The ultimatum is clear: Don’t question Israel or you’re bad for Israel and the Jewish People.
This is about as far from Pluralist as you get and with each passing generation, it turns more Jews away. J Street provides legitimacy to those who are comfortable in personally and publicly differing with Israeli governmental policy. For this they should be commended thoroughly. The great irony of course is that most American Jews believe in “land-for-peace” and have taken issue with Israel’s government at some point in time. It has just been within Jewish establishments that the cause of solidarity drowns out almost all dissent, stifling conversation.
However, J Street has been taking on two tasks, whether intentionally or not:
A. Creating an official Jewish “Land-for-Peace” lobby
B. Creating an established Jewish space for genuine discussion around Israel
Organizationally, they have achieved their first task with fair simplicity. Their tag line is “Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace.” However, they may be taking for granted the diversity among Jews who believe in two states for two peoples. This is demonstrated by Ben-Ami’s publicly broadcasted disapproval of Operation Cast Lead in the winter of 2009.
Many American-Jews who favor the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state alongside Israel may also support Israel’s aggressive military strategy in Gaza. Remember Operation Cast Lead wasn’t Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman’s baby; it was the joint effort of Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak, arguably the two of the most leftist Israeli premieres ever (Barak for his offerings at Camp David to Yassir Arafat and Olmert for advocating for unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, most of the West Bank and agreement to give up over 92% of the West Bank to Palestinians.) I would say that anyone who supported Operation Cast Lead probably felt out of place at the conference. If J Street is not more careful, they will drive away the center-left and lose significant influence and weight in the Jewish community and the diplomatic scene in Washington and Jerusalem.
For the second task that J Street has taken on, stirring meaningful conversation, they’re halfway there. Much of the conference was centered on cultivating interesting conversations. At least once each day, there were sessions where the conference participants sat at round-tables and discussed interesting questions for 20 minutes or so, as directed by someone at the front of the room with a microphone. It created a good atmosphere for sharing and thinking together, a very refreshing approach for a lobby organization in Washington.
The invitation to Rabbi Eric Yoffe, head of the Union for Reform Judaism, after Yoffe’s public refutation of J Street’s stance on Operation Cast Lead, impressed me. Ben-Ami was clearly interested in inviting the voice of respectful dissent. But the problem was Ben-Ami and Yoffe were in 90% agreement, especially around the basic premise of a Land-for-Peace formula for Israel and Palestinians.
The fact that Rabbi Yoffe was about as dissenting a view on Israel as you could find is telling; they bring together the American Jewish community who identifies with Israel’s left and Israel’s extreme lift. But left of center was as far right as the conversation went. During sessions, I heard more than a few people say there were ready to part with the “Pro-Israel” component of J Street and at time applause seemed more readily available for comments made about the future of Palestinians than the future of Israel and settlements. I am afraid that J Street may get pulled too far to the left to be an effective tool in bringing the Jewish People together. That’s not a truly vibrant conversation though this very well may still be an important step in that direction.
Ultimately, J Street should tread the center of the left to unite, strengthen and mobilize the land-for-peace vision, which will mean not putting on any pretense of true Pluralism as an organizational objective. J Street should not pander to the right, who want a Jewish State ruling over the Palestinian people, or the extreme left, who want to invite the Palestinians into Israel as citizens as Libyan Dictator, Muammar Gaddafi has called for in the creation of “Israetine.” Once they focus their message among their constituents around this, the question is then asked, “Who can get J Street and the Zionist Organization of America (a traditionally right wing organization) talking to, and not over, each other?” That is not a question I want to have to answer, at least not right now.
Andrew, I thank you for posting your impressions and views on J Street, and I believe that discussion prompted by J Streets agenda is important. I have read about J Street from a variety of sources - And after refelcting on their self stated agenda and on articles written about them, I am still unclear about one thing.
ReplyDeleteIn what way is their agenda Pro Israel?
I can see how they could become effective over time as a wonderful tool to further Palestinian advocacy, and I can see how J Street currently provides a platform for those who do not see mainstream Jewish establishments as reflective of their voice - But as a lobbyist group, in what way do you see them as advocating for Israel?