When J Street’s supporters gather in Washington later this month for the dovish Israel advocacy group’s first national conference, they will have no shortage of things to celebrate. In the year and a half since its launch, the self-proclaimed “political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement” has made itself a major player in the Jewish community — and, for many, its enfant terrible. While other dovish Jewish groups have attempted, over the years, to influence America’s Mideast policy debates, none has managed to generate anything comparable to J Street’s potent combination of grassroots enthusiasm, inside-the-Beltway political cachet and media buzz.
J Street owes its success, in considerable part, to its talent at tapping into the Jewish left’s deep reservoirs of discontent with the established pro-Israel groups that purport to represent the American Jewish center. Already, it has crossed swords with groups like the Anti-Defamation League and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. J Street staffers have alleged that “established pro-Israel groups have enforced right-wing message discipline on Israel in Congress” and warned Jewish leaders that in aggressively criticizing President Obama they may “alienate” young Jews “from their aging institutions.”
J Street has been more cautious in taking on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and its spokespeople have disclaimed any intent to challenge the primacy of the pro-Israel lobbying powerhouse. Then again, J Street doesn’t have to. From an admiring New York Times Magazine write-up titled “The New Israel Lobby” to articles and blog posts that label J Street an “alternative to AIPAC,” people know a foil when they see one.
The blind spots of the established Jewish groups, meanwhile, have left J Street with an often wide-open playing field. And the group has already made some significant contributions to the national conversation on Israel.
J Street has consistently inserted the concept of America’s national interest into its discussions of Middle East policy, something that established pro-Israel groups often fail to do in a credible fashion. (Instead, they are prone to spout inanities like, There should be “no light” between the public positions of Israel and the United States — a line that should have been tried out on Israeli governments that have publicly supported settlement growth, contrary to the stated desires of successive American administrations.)
J Street has also expanded the pro-Israel tent, enabling a congressional critic of some Israeli policies, such as Rep. Donna Edwards of Maryland, to proudly don the “pro-Israel” mantle. (After all, would the pro-Israel community be better off locked in a downward spiral of acrimony with legislators like her?)
Above all else, J Street brings to the communal table its dogged determination to advance prospects for a two-state solution. Too often, especially when there’s a right-wing government in Jerusalem, established Jewish groups drop the ball on promoting this particular existential interest of the State of Israel.
Indeed, on the issue of West Bank settlements, Jewish groups — even those, such as the ADL, that have no great enthusiasm for the settlement movement — have tended to act as political enablers of an enterprise that threatens to preempt the very possibility of a two-state solution. As J Street’s executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami aptly put it, Israel’s defenders can sometimes be like a friend who would “not only let you drive home drunk but offer you their Porsche and a shot of tequila for the road.”
J Street supporters say that in pushing aggressively for a two-state solution, they are giving voice to the sentiment of the American Jewish mainstream. And they’re not incorrect. The latest installment of the American Jewish Committee’s annual survey of Jewish public opinion found that a significant plurality of American Jews (49%) support the establishment of a Palestinian state under current circumstances. But this year’s AJC survey also found that, in even larger numbers, American Jews are deeply suspicious of the intentions of Israel’s neighbors. Three-quarters of respondents agreed with the statement: “The goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel.”
In other words, American Jews may believe that achieving a two-state solution is a vital Israeli interest, but most also know that it is not Israel’s only vital interest. They know that Israel faces many grave threats, not all of which are self-inflicted.
And when it comes to confronting Israel’s enemies in the Middle East, and its most one-sided critics in the West, AIPAC and the alphabet soup of establishment Jewish groups can be counted on to respond with vigor (if not always with wisdom). For all of their shortcomings, these “aging institutions” perform a necessary task that has earned them a measure of loyalty from the Jewish rank-and-file.
J Street, on the other hand, too often comes across as the pro-Israel group that won’t — or simply can’t be bothered to — take Israel’s side in a fight. When Israel launched its military offensive against Hamas in Gaza last December, J Street dashed off a statement that said: “Neither Israelis nor Palestinians have a monopoly on right or wrong. While there is nothing ‘right’ in raining rockets on Israeli families or dispatching suicide bombers, there is nothing ‘right’ in punishing a million and a half already-suffering Gazans for the actions of the extremists among them.”
This prompted a fierce rebuke from the president of the Union for Reform Judaism, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, arguably the American Jewish establishment’s leading dove. Writing in these pages, Yoffie called J Street’s statement “morally deficient, profoundly out of touch with Jewish sentiment and also appallingly naïve.” Indeed, even if J Street’s concerns over the Gaza offensive have proved to be, in some respects, prescient (but only in some respects, because Operation Cast Lead did, in fact, bring a measure of quiet to southern Israel), the group was clearly tone deaf in its choice of words.
But the Gaza war wasn’t the only time J Street has seemed out of touch. Perusing its early public statements, one could be forgiven for thinking that J Street sees Pastor John Hagee as a greater menace to Israel than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. (On its Web site, under the heading “Myths and Facts About J Street,” the group counters complaints over its critical emphasis by noting that it has “also been critical of Holocaust denial by Hamas, the use of the Durban II conference to promote anti-Semitism, and support for violence and incitement against Israel in the Arab world” — hardly pioneering positions for a pro-Israel group.)
For all its zeal in assailing settlement expansion and the foibles of the Jewish right, J Street has not consistently demonstrated a commensurate taste for fighting Israel’s foes. Perhaps it’s because the former and not the latter is what gets its supporters excited. Or maybe J Street simply doesn’t see this as its job. After all, the constellation of established pro-Israel groups have considerably more resources at their disposal, and often do this work quite ably. Still, it’s a little unseemly to scold the pro-Israel establishment, while simultaneously letting it do the heavy lifting of defending Israel.
In its short existence, J Street has assembled a formidable army from the ranks of those who feel alienated from the pro-Israel establishment. But if it wants to move beyond this large but limited base, it needs to show that it is as passionate about standing up for Israel as it is about criticizing Israeli shortsightedness. Only then will J Street win the respect of American Jewry’s Main Street.
Daniel Treiman is the opinion editor of the Forward.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Cleveland Kidnapping, Elizabeth Smart and Us
Tracing the Jewish Origins of the Holy Ghost
Ethical Kosher Seal Stalls Amid Orthodox Opposition
Baby Boomers’ Rocky Road to Jewish Love
'War' With Ultra-Orthodox at Kotel? Bring It On
You've successfully signed up!
"But the Gaza war wasn’t the only time J Street has seemed out of touch."
What does it mean to be out of touch? Out of touch with what? I think that they made a very clear and insightful statement about Cast Lead:“Neither Israelis nor Palestinians have a monopoly on right or wrong. While there is nothing ‘right’ in raining rockets on Israeli families or dispatching suicide bombers, there is nothing ‘right’ in punishing a million and a half already-suffering Gazans for the actions of the extremists among them.”
Cast Lead was an Israeli operation to flatten Gaza, which it did. Should J Street have to defend this? Is it ok to be critical of the Occupation, like Rabbi Yoffie is, and then when Israel engages in a massive action, that, even if it may be justified to take military action against the rockets, was conducted in such a manner so as to be clearly in violation of International Humanitarian Law (the laws of war) to feel one must jump on aboard the war train? I would have liked to have heard progressive and anti Occupation rabbis, en masse, issue a statement about the failures of the Jewish State to adhere to Jewish and humanistic values in conducting war... J Street is on the right road. Jews in the US are learning and understanding more and more that there is less and less to defend when Israel continues to do what it does vis-a-vis the Occupation. It is hard to defend Israeli behavior and policy, be it policy against Palestinians or the policy of deportation of children of migrant workers. J Street was right... it seems that Israel's best 'friends' are those that would let their friend, Israel, continue to drive, drunk and stoned on some messianic cocktail of the Occupation.
Louis - Gaza was not "flattened". There was much damage, of course - but to say that the city was flattened means that you haven't been there, and that the source of your information is some hostile propaganda.
Israel must go to war in such a way as to prevent any and all suffering to the enemy population. What is the example or the precedent for such a war? The Allies caused much suffering to the German population in order to defeat the "extremists among them" (the Nazi regime). Was that an illegitimate war? A society that has decided to resort to violence (i.e. war) to advance its interests has taken upon itself the price of such a dramatic decision. The general population will suffer (lack of supplies, disruption of life, damage to property, casualties). The rules now seem to be quite clear: whatever Israel chooses to do in her war will be defined as "in violation of International Humanitarian Law". Obviously, it will be impossible to strike out at her enemies without causing some suffering to the population among which this enemy operates. No one is coming out and saying it in clear words, but the hostile message is obvious: the legitimacy of the state is being challenged - and an "illegitimate state" cannot legitimately defend itself.
I would be curious to hear from J Street the legitimate rules of war in its eyes. I would be even more curious to hear what the rules are from Jews who actually have to bear the burdens of war - and not just watch it on TV.
Ben Levi said:
>Louis - Gaza was not "flattened". There was much damage, of course - but to say that the city was flattened means that you haven't been there,
Ben Levi, were you there?
Mr. Treiman, Hi.
I'm the person who released the 3 and 1/2 minute video, in May 2008, that was widely credited with causing John McCain to reject his political endorsement from John Hagee.
Permit me to challenge your sense of who might be a "foe" to Israel, and Jewish interests generally.
While CUFI founder John Hagee's "...then God sent a hunter. Hitler was a hunter" statement provoked scandal Hagee has also claimed, in his 2006 book Jerusalem Countdown (page 236, current edition, still on sale at some major booksellers), that some percentage of Jews alive today belong to an evil line of "half-breed Jews" which Hagee asserts began with Esau and eventually spawned Adolf Hitler.
Hagee has also promoted, via Christian broadcast channels that reach many millions of people worldwide, the conspiracy theory that "The Rothschilds" control the US economy and have conspired to bankrupt the United States by devaluing the dollar. Hitler pushed similar ideas.
Ahmadinejad's anti-Jewish statements are typically vile, indeed. But John Hagee's anti-Semitic screeds are in their own way just as bad and he has emitted them - to virtually no criticism from the Jewish community - for years.
The new Israeli Ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, has chosen to snub J Street's 2009 conference but he has spoken in 2009 at John Hagee's Christians United For Israel events and in 2008 at Hagee's San Antonio, Texas megachurch.
Yes. And you, Norman?
Daniel -- You complain that "For all its zeal in assailing settlement expansion and the foibles of the Jewish right, J Street has not consistently demonstrated a commensurate taste for fighting Israel’s foes." I have no special wisdom on this, but it seems to me that the question JStreet asks re Israel's foes is NOT how can we best fight them but how can we encourage them to change their behavior. That, I assume, is why JStreet opposed the application of harsh sanctions on Iran at this time, and that is why it encourages talking with anyone. Such policies are not the result of indifference to the venomous seriousness of Israel's enemies. Yet when JStreet does, in fact, take a harder line -- you mention opposition to Holocaust denial by Hamas, opposition to Durban II and opposition to incitement and violence against Israel in the Arab wqrld, your reaction is that it is ho-hum, boring, too conventional to notice. So you evidently want JStreet to be innovative in its proposals for fighting Israel's foes -- whatever that means I suggest that just about the only thing it can plausibly mean is taking the fight in a different direction, one that does not instinctively screech for confrontation.. Which is, as I understand it, what JStreet is trying to do.
Organizations like J Street are the enemy. If you think logically, you can come to no other conclusion. The Arab world has tried to defeat Israel militarily for 60 years with no success. Now we have another tactic being employed. Burrowing from within, causing doubt, weakening the will to defend yourself, isolating Israel from her friends.
There is not one leftwing government in the world that is pro-Israel, in point of fact all of them are actively anti-Israel (Norway, Venezuela, Cuba, France under Chirac, et al). It is logical for me to deduce that the left wing is no friend to Israel. If it looks like a dog and barks like a dog, then it is a dog. J Street is a left wing dog.
If the Arab world wanted peace, then there would have been peace 50 years ago. The palestinians are the cannon fodder for the arab world. With all that oil money, how much aid comes from the arab world to palestine in the form of food and medicine? If Israel was so evil why weren't Palestinians absorbed into other arab countries.
All the Arab world wants is the destruction of Israel and J Street is helping them.
The so-called "organized" or "mainstream" Jewish community spent a lot of time rebutting and deploring Mearsheimer and Walt's book that sought to prove the steamrolling power of the Jewish lobby. The current hailstorm directed at J Street only serves to gives credibility to that claim. Whatever happened to the Talmudic ethos of honest disputation? By attempting to silence dissent and by pressuring the Israeli Ambassador and other Congresspersons who signed on as co-sponsors of the J Street conference to disavow this fledgling organization, those on the right are not pro-Israel, they're anti-democratic.
Jstreet is a devisive force within American Jewry. At this time Jews need to be united,not air their arguments in the world's media and if you don't live in Israel keep your mouths shut and support the only country you will ever have.
I agree with Hagee. My own mother, a Holocaust survivor, wanted to emigrate from her Polish shtetl to Palestine in the mid-1930s, but my grandmother, a very warm and tender soul who fed the poor, stopped her from going as she was the apple of her eye. And she was a widow. Well, of course, my grandmother and the whole family was exterminated, and my mother just barely survived.
The fact is, from 1920 through 1938, Palestine was open to legal Jewish immigration as it had been designated as the Jewish National Home and actually encouraged by the League to emigrate. I take it as a miracle and gift from God. Alas, for many reasons, only a paltry few went and struggled to remain there in the face of hardships, poverty and Arab terror. But at least they didn't have to go through what my family went through - that is literally the fires of Hell. They had a tough life but learned to fight and in the end built the Jewish State while their European relatives burned. So, I'm in full agreement with Hagee. Jewish survival is truly a miracle from God, because Jews are their own worst enemies.
Ben Levi, of course I wasn't there. The Israeli government doesn't allow Americans access to Gaza to find out what's going on.
In what capacity were you there? As a member of the IDF?
If you're saying that only people who were there can decide whether Gaza was flattened, and IDF members are the only outsiders that Israel allows there, then only IDF members can decide whether Gaza was flattened.
I think they would be biased in favor of the Israeli government.
There are several problems with J Street. First, to call yourself "pro peace" suggests that those who do not agree with you are "pro war." I'm sure the Prime Minister of Israel, having fought in the IDF and having lost his beloved brother, Jonathan (z''l) understands the pain and bloodshed of war better than most.
Bibi was elected, through a democratic process, the PM of Israel. Like it or not, a dove is not running their government. And remember, it is their government, not ours. Having done so, that means that the majority of Isaelis would not favor the current positions of J Street. Thus, J Street is currently speaking only for itself, not the will of the majority of Israelis. I would therefore ask J Street if I could, just what do you propose to do to create a Palestine? Since most Israelis would reject your political views, I can only assume the goal of J Street is to seperate the U.S. government from that of Israel in order to force Israel to give up land. Is that really what J Street hopes to achieve?
Norman - You prefer to believe that Gaza was flattened, because that fits your imagination of "reality". You could also visit Israel like any other tourist. Drop by and see your relatives, put a little note between the stones of the Western Wall, see a few nice museums, brush up a little of the Hebrew you took in school - and then go to the central bus station of Jerusalem to take an "Egged" bus to Kibbutz Be'eri or Kibbutz Sa'ad or to the town of Sderot. Take a little walk, perhaps to the "Anzak Memorial" or to any high spot in the country side - and, surprise, the entire city of Gaza will be standing in front of you. Standing, not flattened. High-rise buildings, residential neighborhoods - a real town surrounded by real agricultural fields.
Ben Levi - Norman could enter Gaza through Egyptian territory (at Rafah). "The Israeli government doesn't allow Americans access to Gaza..." was a way of expressing hostility towards Israel. The Gaza Strip is under the rule of an enemy entity (whose official and declared policy is the ultimate destruction of Israel and its replacement by an Islamic rule), so obviously the Israel-Gaza border is closed. That's how it is between enemies. It's so normal and self-evident - yet somehow, anti-Israel people managed to present our normalcy as improper. Anyway, Gaza has a border with Egypt, and Norman (or Louis) could actually walk the streets of Gaza.
I'm an Israeli. I live in America. I'm left wing.
I love Israel, I want it to succeed and be at peace. I want my family there to have long happy healthy and quiet lives.
I don't always agree with the Israeli government and I am uncomfortable with the right leaning and uncompromising tone of AIPAC and other current mainstream groups and don't always believe that what they stand for really IS the best thing for Israel. I don't believe that "no light should show between the US and Israel", they are different countries with different populations and different needs. They SHOULD represent their populations and not always agreeing is OK, I appreciate the support the US has generally shown though.
That said, I've not yet been able to jump on the J-Street bandwagon. Maybe because it is a little early. Maybe because Ben-Ami still seems to be a lone show rather than a true representative of a group or concensus. Maybe because I am not a huge fan of "groupthink' and prefer to maintain my own perspective on things.
I was time for alternative voices to be heard though and I am grateful that someone is attempting it.
Ronnie said 'Jews need to be united,not air their arguments in the world's media and if you don't live in Israel keep your mouths shut and support the only country you will ever have.'
I disagree completely. My country is USA. I will be critical when Israel behaves badly. For your information 1166 Palestinians killed in Gaza war. There are many more things such as walls, restriction and so forth I am not pleased about. But it is wars that makes me speak.
J street or whatever may not represent me. But the so-called jewish organizations definitely does not represent me. I agree with many Jstreet's views. And may be 60% Jewish Americans agree with me too!
Ben Levi,
According to the Goldstone report, and many independent investigators such as the BBC, Khalid Abd Rabbo, his wife Kawthar, their three daughters, Souad (aged 9), Samar (aged 5) and Amal (aged 3), and his mother, Hajja Souad Abd Rabbo, were shot by an Israeli soldier after they stepped out of their house carrying white flags. Souad and Amal were killed, and Samar was left a paraplegic for the rest of her life.
Since "were you there" is so important to you, all these investigators were there, but the Israeli government never sent anyone to the scene, or to interview the Palestinian eyewitnesses and victims, and refused to allow anyone to interview the soldiers on the scene.
The Israeli government has not prosecuted the soldier who killed that 3-year-old and 5-year-old child (or any soldiers in Operation Cast Lead).
Ben Levi, do you believe the Israeli soldier was right to kill those two children? Do you believe the Israeli government was right not to prosecute or even investigate these charges?
Here's the BBC story http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfT4QrqOnYM
Here's the Goldstone report:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf
770. In the late morning of 7 January 2009, Israeli tanks moved onto the small piece of agricultural land in front of the house. Shortly after 12.30 p.m., the inhabitants of that part of Izbat Abd Rabbo heard megaphone messages telling all residents to leave. According to one witness’s recollection, there had also been a radio message broadcast by the Israeli armed forces around 12.30 announcing that there would be a temporary cessation of shooting between 1 and 4 p.m. that day, during which time residents of the area were asked to walk to central Jabaliyah.
771. At about 12.50 p.m., Khalid Abd Rabbo, his wife Kawthar, their three daughters, Souad (aged 9), Samar (aged 5) and Amal (aged 3), and his mother, Hajja Souad Abd Rabbo, stepped out of the house, all of them carrying white flags. Less than 10 metres from the door was a tank, turned towards their house. Two soldiers were sitting on top of it having a snack (one was eating chips, the other chocolate, according to one of the witnesses). The family stood still, waiting for orders from the soldiers as to what they should do, but none was given. Without warning, a third soldier emerged from inside the tank and started shooting at the three girls and then also at their grandmother. Several bullets hit Souad in the chest, Amal in the stomach and Samar in the back. Hajja Souad was hit in the lower back and in the left arm.
Bill Pearlman -So you have a problem with American Jews sitting in NY and Washington having opinions if they are left wing but not if they are right wing? AIPAC is an American group too. Not only that, but many of its big money backers aren't even Jews.
If you think Americans who don't have to be on the front line should butt out (not an unreasonable opinion actually) you should be consistent and include ALL Americans, no matter their viewpoint. To be really consistent you should really insist on American money being pulled to. Money talks, as we all know.
Ok, Lisa, let me throw this one at you. Say you were PM of Israel. What would you do, what's your brilliant plan that they haven't thought of. Please enlighten me. Serious question. How, would you deal with hamas, hezbollah, a soon to be nuclear Iran. It's obviously transparent to you and Obama. But keep in mind the goal is the continuation of Israel . Not its destruction and the death and dispersal of the Jews there in./
Bill Pearlman,
Lisa can give her own answer, but it's not that difficult.
The Arab League has offered peace with Israel and recognition, if they withdraw to the 1967 borders. That's the solution.
You're going to say that Israel can't do that because they can't trust Hamas, Hamas will just use the peace to build up their weapons, and finally drive Israel into the sea. You're going to say that making any meaningful concession to the other side will threaten Israel's existence -- even if the US itself guarantees the peace treaty with its own military support.
You simply refuse to accept the possibility that any realistic peace proposal can work.
You're left with fighting Hamas until you've exterminated them -- and their entire families, and anyone who gives "material support" to Hamas, even the office workers in Hamas administrative buildings.
I don't believe that. I believe that Arafat would have accepted peace at the 1967 borders. And I think most Jews agree with me.
Norman - No one is justifying the deaths of innocents (children or adults) during warfare. Your reading into my comments such an imagined meaning - quite the opposite of what I had said ("I don't mean to belittle the sad story") - might be innocent (i.e. you don't really read intently the comments of those who debate with you); but, of course, it could very well be deliberate (i.e you wish to toss out insults as a tool of debate). Moreover, no one said that you don't have a right to condemn (or criticize) Israel just because you don't live here. Not at all. Not participating in the struggles here only means that there are nevertheless aspects of reality that even you don't understand. I did indicate, however, that Goldstone himself admitted that his fact-finding mission was not a court of law. For you, the jury has returned its verdict.
In opposition to your very hostile interpretations of Israel's intentions in this conflict, you amazingly attribute very moderate attitudes to the other side. You "believe" that Arafat would have ended the conflict "at the 1967 border". It's interesting to read the logic of the anti-Israel crowd. When it comes to Israel, they are "super-intellectuals", having read uncritically every report imaginable. Yet, when it comes to the Arab position, suddenly their intellectualism comes to a halt ("I believe that Arafat would have accepted peace at the 1967 borders. And I think most Jews agree with me"). No sources, no quotes, no research. I would find it interesting to discover the source of this duality. Anyway, should I also assume that you probably couldn't read a word in Arabic, not even your own name?
The Arab League proposal, which by the way was never presented to Israel, only to to the Palestinian mouthpieces in the media includes fascinating gems like the Palestinian right of return, and an Israeli withdrawal that gives syria access to lake kinneret, Not to mention withdrawal from the western wall and all other Jewish religious sites in the west bank. Which the Palestinians love to destroy. It makes no mention of nonstate actors like hamas, hezbollah, Islamic jihad, and palestinians for the introduction of I don't know toilet paper.Not to mention Iran. And in fact was never ratified in a vote. Your faith in Arafat is touching but an Israeli PM has to live in the real world, not your fantasy world. And the fact remains that Israel cannot allow a nuclear Iran to field a proxy army on the west bank ridge line. Particularly when the Goldstone report basically strips Israel of the right of self defense. And the thought that Obama is going t back Israel in a crunch is absurd. I lived in Chicago for 20yrs. The guy hung with Rashid Khalidi, Jeremiah Wright, and is anti-Israel to the core. Despite what my fellow Jews, who think abortion is more important then the survival of Israel seem to think.
Ben Levi,
There is one clear issue here. According to the Goldstone report, an IDF soldier murdered 3-year-old Amal Rabbo and 5-year-old Samar Rabbo, in circumstances that presented no threat, while their family was surrendering and carrying a white flag. Goldstone's team went to the scene, personally investigated it, and talked to eyewitnesses. The BBC also went to the scene and investigated it. Other people investigated it, and there is no credible evidence that it is not true. The IDF has been silent about the facts of the case. They may (or may not) have talked to the soldiers or his commander, but they didn't talk to the Palestinian victims or eyewitnesses.
This was not proven in a court of law. So what? It wasn't brought to a court of law because the Israeli government refused to bring it to a court of law. They consistently refuse to bring human rights charges against Israeli soldiers to court. There was no courtroom evidence while Jews were being exterminated during World War II either, but that doesn't justify the failure of the world to stop it.
And while it hasn't been tried in court, this is evidence that would be admissible in court: eyewitness testimony, multiple eyewitnesses interviewed separately, consistent physical evidence such as the candy bar and potato chip wrappers, and the injuries of the victims.
The Rabbo case is like many others, but here the evidence is particularly strong. The evidence at a minimum justifies an investigation by the Israeli government, and they've refused. Incidents like this must be investigated quickly, before witnesses and evidence disappears, so by delaying, the Israeli government has ruled out an investigation.
My question for you is: Is there evidence of murder here? Should the IDF have investigated? Since they didn't investigate, and there will be no courtroom trial, will you speak out and condemn this Israeli soldier for the murder of a 3-year-old child?
I have not heard you condemn this murder of a 3-year-old child.
The most compelling reason to support J Street's approach is that ENDLESS WAR is a loser for everyone. How can we possibly expect Israel to survive inside a wall surrounded by enemies? This makes no sense to me. We have to turn away from fighting, propaganda, the blame game, etc. We have to listen to views different from our own. We have to search. We have to search for a solution. If we really search, I believe we will find it.
Lee Diamond - Also in the Middle Ages, you could have asked: "How can the Jews possibly survive in the face of this ENDLESS hostility? This makes no sense to me." The hostility of the world surrounding Israel might be permanent. It could be that there is no solution (or no solution in our generation). Listening to J-Street is fine - but it is an illusion to believe that they have the solution to the conflict. No, they don't. They have only a message for the Jewish public (for example, opposition to settlements). I don't think that they have the talent to reach the Arab public with any messages. Now, some intellectuals in the world - including Jewish intellectuals at J-Street - seem to think that it's only up to Israel. "If only Israel would do 'x' or 'y', then...." That's nonsense. There is no formula for ending the hostility towards Israel. The Arab world has its own sociology and its own dynamics that none of us really understands too well - surely not J-Street.
Thank you Mr. Treiman for pointing out the elephant in the room.
J-Street is inwardly focused not outwardly focused. It wants to lobby Israel on behalf of specific policies and ideas advocated by certain Israeli political parties, not advocate to the outer world on behalf of Israel. It is essentially a political lobby trying to influence Israel through the U.S. government. That's fine, but J-Street should be up front and not hide behind the Israel Advocacy tag. This inward focus explains the complete lack of interest in fighting Israel's foes.
AIPAC and J-Street do different things and any comparison is false.
Here's an interesting observation about the recent war in Gaza given to the UNHRC in Geneva:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dTyrHstLpU
Judges 6:34 read\\
thus tyrants to establish their upurped power, spare not the innocent blood. read 2 Kings 10 and 2 Ch. 21.
I think that the two state solution is overstated here. I am a staunch supporter of a single state of Palestine from the river to the sea. I am also encouraged that key advisors to J street share my opinion. For instance, Ayelet Waldmann, a member of the J street Advisory board has stated that our greedy quest for Palestine has made us a scapegoat for terror. Her husband, Michael Chabon, has written the "Yiddish Policemans Union" about a Jewish state in the Aleutians. He too is a member of J street. I think that even the Forward, which has long been coopted by zionists, needs to rethink its support of israel, and I hope the concept of a binational state will not be stifled
Stella Goldschlag, I'd be interested to know if your vision of "a single state of Palestine" means an end of conflict, or just an end of Israel. (You didn't use the term "solution" when stating support of a single state "from the river to the sea"). I also find it interesting to notice that you always use a capital letter whenever the rules dictate it ("Palestine", "Jewish", "Chabon") - with just two exceptions: "israel" and "zionists". It would seem reasonable that this is an expression of contempt, indicating indeed that "a single state of Palestine from the river to the sea" is meant to end Israel's existence (the primary agenda that you are raising), not necesarily to end the conflict (ending the conflict is the self-evident motivation of those proposing a "two-state solution").
Qotz (or is it Potz?) The only way to end the conflict is to end israel. You know it and I know it. Israelis, who are not endogenous to Palestine, can live anywhere in the world. Palestinians dont have this freedom, so should live in their homeland. I am hoping that the 2 staters dont suppress discussion of returning Palestine to its owners in the interest of peace. As I saw someone say on the internet once "You can have israel or peace, but not both". AIPAC and traditional zionist lobbies are dedicated to perpetuation of the conflict. I am encouraged that there are advisors to J street that can acknowlege the obvious
So, Stella, given your agenda, and the agenda of these "J Street advisors" in favor of a one-state solution, please explain how the organization can legitimately describe itself as "pro-Israel"? Arguing that J Street is pro-Israel is like saying that Jews for Jesus is a Jewish denomination. If indeed, the Chabons are advisors, your comment uncovers the lie at the very heart of J Street.
please explain how the organization can legitimately describe itself as "pro-Israel"? ...why should the organization be forced to describe itself as pro-Israel? Dont we have freedom of expression here? Some members of Jstreet are still in favor of the 2 state solution, some are in favor of a one state solution. It is a Jewish tradition to express our differences civilly. However, it is a matter of time before the two staters will join the rest of humanity in clamoring for a one state solution.
Stella, I absolutely agree with you. J Street should not describe itself as pro-Israel. But it does. This is the very deception at the heart of J Street.
It's not surprising that AIPAC is exerting political pressure on members of Congress not to attend next week's J Street conference in Washington. AIPAC feels threatened (rightfully so) by J Street, a pro-peace and alternative pro-Israel lobby that is gaining legitimacy.
AIPAC smear campaigns against pro-peace Jewish activists and groups are nothing new. AIPAC's concerted efforts to discredit Jewish critics of Israeli policies are well documented.
An August 1992 Village Voice article by Robert I. Friedman revealed that a unit of AIPAC investigated and harassed dovish Jewish groups advocating land for peace. The AIPAC office, known as Policy Analysis, maintained files for the purpose of discrediting pro-peace groups like Americans for Peace Now and the Jewish Peace Lobby.
A former AIPAC staffer, Gregory Slabodkin, was the source for Friedman's article and provided internal documents to support his charges.
"The mandate of Policy Analysis (formerly Opposition Research) is to monitor, analyze and respond to anti-Israeli activities in the United States," the head of the office, Michael Lewis, wrote in an internal memo in August 1990. "Arab Americans are by no means our sole concern. New Jewish Agenda, the Jewish Peace Lobby and the Jewish Committee on the Middle East to name but some of the more prominent organizations, were all formed in the past few years."
J Street is just the latest target for AIPAC's smear tactics, although the political stakes are higher this time.
AIPAC is afraid of a free and open debate of U.S. policy in the Middle East, which to date has been dominated by AIPAC. They are not the only national Jewish organization to target J Street, although they stand the most to lose as “the” Israel lobby. However, we should not be surprised by this AIPAC smear campaign against J Street.
AIPAC has long operated a covert section that monitors and keeps files on politicians, journalists, academics, Arab-American activists, Jewish liberals, and others it labels "anti-Israel".
In that same August 1990 internal AIPAC memo made public by Slabodkin, the head of AIPAC’s opposition research boasted: "There is no question that we exert a policy impact, but working behind the scenes and taking care not to leave fingerprints, that impact is not always traceable to us."
It wasn’t so long ago that the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council passed a resolution condemning "McCarthy-like" tactics used by some Jewish organizations. The resolution proposed guidelines for dealing with "the right of dissent" on Israeli policies, and emphasized the importance of open and thoughtful exchange in an atmosphere of "mutual tolerance and civility."
AIPAC and its backers in the organized Jewish community should adhere to that standard.