David Bernstein offers some friendly advice to J-Street. I certainly agree with his advice. However, I disagree with one of his premises.
Second, from approximately 1988 to Fall 2000, I held views on the Arab-Israeli conflict that would put me comfortably in the mainstream of the JStreeters. Events in the Summer and Fall of 2000 led me to change my views, but I understand where many JStreeters are coming from, and I don’t think their views should be dismissed as “anti-Israel.”
This is significant. In the fall of 2000, the policies advocated by the Israeli peace camp were shown – by events – to be mistaken. Prof. Bernstein, when he witnessed the same events – the so-called “Aqsa intifada, Hezbollah’s cross border attack – and adjusted his views accordingly. The J-Street folks did not and now still believe that the only the thing that prevents peace in the Middle East is Israeli intransigence. If after 2000, someone still figures that Israel is mostly or even largely to blame for the failure of the peace process, he is no friend of Israel.
And even if I weren’t calling J-Street “anti-Israel,” the organization has a knack for demonstrating its true leanings. Yesterday at the supposedly unaffiliated J-Street bloggers panel, a pro-Israel attendee was thrown out by security. So much for J-Street’s claim that it is looking for debate.
Stavis, a paid conference attendee (after all, Jeremy Ben-Ami stated that they welcome those who disagree), was in the back of the room filming (as were many others). Some time in, apparently recognizing a member of his enemies list, Silverstein springs up and can be seen in the video crossing the room to get security. He then approaches Stavis, who is doing nothing and causing no disruption whatsoever, to tell him security is going to kick him out.
He is then approached by a J Street official, Amy Spitalnick, Press and New Media Associate, who can be heard telling him he has to leave. The video ends at that point as, Stavis tells me, she grabbed at the camera.
And while J-Street (or specifically Jeremy Ben Ami) denied any connection between the organization and the bloggers’ panel, Michael Goldfarb observed:
The “independent” blogger panel at J Street’s conference can only be described as clownish. The panel consisted mostly of crackpots and self-described anti-Zionists and “one-staters” (J Street director Jeremy Ben-Ami calls the one-state solution a “nightmare,” but it seems to be the dream of many of the organization’s supporters). Though J Street tried to distance itself from the panel by describing it as an “unofficial” and “independent” event, the bloggers used one of the rooms otherwise reserved for conference events, a podium in the front had a J Street placard on it, and a J Street banner hung on the back wall of the room.
And if it wasn’t enough that J-Street was promoting a group of unapologetic anti-Zionists, one of the organizations affiliates has decided that it will officially do away with the “pro-Israel” label. (h/t Elder of Ziyon)
“We don’t want to isolate people because they don’t feel quite so comfortable with ‘pro-Israel,’ so we say ‘pro-peace,'” said American University junior Lauren Barr of the “J Street U” slogan, “but behind that is ‘pro-Israel.'”
Barr, secretary of the J Street U student board that decided the slogan’s terminology, explained that on campus, “people feel alienated when the conversation revolves around a connection to Israel only, because people feel connected to Palestine, people feel connected to social justice, people feel connected to the Middle East.”
Martin Peretz wonders about the possible political repercussions J-Street will suffer.
Well, they did invite J Street, and now they are stuck with the damage. The J Streeters went around identifying themselves as Obama’s people in the crowd. I suppose that was good for them. But it was not good for Obama. The fact is that, by this past weekend, when J-Street launched its D.C. fest, it was already seen in the public mind as a bunch of nut cases and very much anti-Israel in the very substantive sense. It was callous about Iran’s nuclear threat to Israel, was against sanctions, supported negotiations with Hamas, which even the E.U. disdained. Moreover, it refuses to recognize that one obstacle to a two-state solution is that neither the Palestinians nor the other Arabs can even contemplate security guarantees to Israel.
Mr. President: You courted a friend. Now you have him. Woe is you.
My advice to J-Street, is: if you still insist that Israel is largely or mainly at fault for the failure of the Middle East peace process, if you give a platform to an anti-Zionist group and if you feel that calling yourself “pro-Israel” will hinder your recruitment efforts, you are anti-Israel. It’s your label. Wear it proudly.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
J Street also opposes sanctions on Iran–not more stringent sanctions, not different sanctions, but sanctions altogether, claiming the time is “not right” for them. I wonder when the right time would be?
It endorsed a presentation of Caryl Churchill’s obscene little playlet, “Seven Jewish Children,” and then said no, they were just trying to open a conversation. Apparently J Street doesn’t think there’s enough conversation on this and that whether Israel cynically uses the Holocaust to cover its deliberate slaughter of Arab children is a topic worthy of discussion.
And so on. J Street may be “pro-Israel” but it’s some alternate reality Israel, not the actually existing one.