More J Street Craziness
Okay, I’d resolved not to blog about J Street for a while, since every time I do it takes days to sort through the angry email, but I just have to ask again: what is it about this group that drives people so batty?
Read through J Street’s press statements, Web site and op-eds, and it’s obviously a strongly pro-Israel group, even if its views of what constitutes the best policy to secure Israel’s future aren’t the same as the Israeli government’s or AIPAC’s and even though it is clearly not a big fan of the current government.
Yet I get emails almost every day calling it an “an anti-Israel group,” or “the viciously anti-Israel J Street,” or “the Israel bashing J Street.”
| Return to Jewish Week Home Page
Follow the Jewish Week on Twitter And check out the Jewish Week’s Facebook page and become a fan! |
I’m not flacking for the group, I’ve never had Jeremy Ben-Ami to dinner and I haven’t given them a dime. I’ve written that their longterm prospects are far from assured, since they represent a huge but unfocused base, while AIPAC, the group they are often seen as competing with, represents a smaller but intensely committed and focused core of activists.
But I’m still wondering: why is it so threatening to have different points of view about complex Mideast policy issues? And what is it about this group that drives people to extremes of outrage?
There are a few right wingers I quote regularly in stories because their views are well thought out and interesting. I’ve never received an email telling me I was hurting Israel when I quoted them, even though there are plenty of people in the Jewish community who dislike their views.
But J Street is branded as an enemy of the Jewish state and the Jewish people pretty much every time its leaders speak and every time journalists utter its name, except when it’s part of a slam.
Is Israel so fragile that the biggest threat to its existence is open debate over Middle East policy, not Iranian missiles?
Or is it that J Street has delved into the realm of political fundraising and is using that to back up its lobbying operation – a formula that helped build the mainstream pro-Israel movement? Is that what’s so threatening to so many of the people who send me emails about J Street?
Or is it that J Street’s message resonates with younger Jews, a demographic the traditional organizations have had a hard time attracting in large numbers?
Or do these emailers genuinely believe that anyone who disagrees with their positions on Israel and U.S. Middle East policy is an implacable enemy of the entire Jewish world? That’s the scariest possibility.
Tags: AIPAC, J Street, Pro-Israel
July 20th, 2009 at 8:45 am
It’s much the same as in general American political discourse, where Conservatives in general and Republicans in particular go way over top in their opposition to liberal ideas and Democratic policies; where liberals do not simply present an opposing perspective on issues, but pose an existential threat to American values altogether; where President Obama is not just a Democrat who won a presidential election, but one whose presidency must be characterized as illegitimate and even whose very citizenship must be called into question; and where liberal disagreement with conservative thought must always be seen as “censorship” by a fill-in-the-blank “elite.”
There is a class of our political spectrum that believes itself privileged to the decision-making positions in American leadership, while American movement conservatism strongly depends on the sensitivities and resentments of this cult, and the ganse machers of Beit Podhoretz have established themselves among the intelligentsia of American movement conservatism. This dynamic goes a long way to explain why the likes of Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, David Horwitz, Dennis Praeger, etc. still enjoy solid reputations among our mainstream news industry, despite the logical gaps and the dismal track record in their trademark speculative punditry.
July 20th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
As a J Street supporter, I would like to thank you for this thoughtful essay - and I concur with Barry’s equally thoughtful comments. I believe that J Street hits two critical nerves of the Mainstream Jewish Powers That Be (MJPTB): 1. The first is the concept that debate is a HEALTHFUL thing that can actually lead to better policy decisions. I have had recent discussions here in Chicago about the fact that 25-30 years ago, the JUF used to actively sponsor real debates about policy towards Israel. No longer. The Federations have moved firmly into the Israel-Right or Wrong camp and will not allow any dissenting voices to be heard. (Israel’s conduct during the recent Gaza War comes to mind. Currently, the Great Iranophobia as well). It is extremely ironic that the current MJPTB smother debate. Isn’t the heart of Talmudic learning - debate?
2. Many of J Street’s principles really stem from what I have always called basic Jewish Values. Most importantly, the concepts of Justice and Human Rights. One of the primary questions here is: What are the long term ramifications of building a country on the basis of having to control another people through the realities of being an occupying army? That is, beyond the arguments of laying blame to whose fault the current situation might be (Palestinian terror vs. Israeli expansionism, say), the facts on the ground are that Israel as a nation is no longer the underdog surrounded by hostile Arab nations (a la 1948). Rather, Israel has one of the most sophisticated and powerful militaries in the world. And unfortunately, one of its tasks in defending the rest of Israel is to be an occupying force in the West Bank. This puts many of the young men and women in the IDF into very difficult moral situations which are bound to affect the moral fiber of the country. Many of J Street’s positions point out these moral ambiguities and raise uncomfortable questions that the MJPTB would rather not deal with.
July 20th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
It is very simple why Jstreet is called all these things. For the most part they are true. Every day I am alerted via Jstreet at some terrible alleged injustice that Israel is perpetrating. To be clear, there is nothing wrong with political discourse, but in the past week I have received a dozen articles criticizing Israel with not a single positive tone. I find this very troubling for many reasons, the chief of which being that the target audience of your publication knows very little about the conflict and as such may believe this publication without other sources. What a person may believe is up to them, but if they are only exposed to this form of rhetoric disguising itself as pro-israeli they may be assuaged without proper reason. I also find it strange that you call this publication pro-Israel, for even thought that may be your intentions, it is clear that the tone of your articles reflects otherwise. If your are truly interested in a more cohesive relationship with the Jewish community, you might consider that it is not that you bring up issues in Israeli policy, but the tone in which you do so. This tone is the same as the many calls for Israel’s complete and utter destruction. I proudly consider myself a left winger, I am most certainly a professional Jew and I am in favor of a two state solution(as even the most right wing Israelis are). I would like to say that Jstreet has never, and does not appeal to my views. As a pro gay rights advocate, women’s rights advocate I will ardently defend Israel’s actions in their pursuit of freedom. I will remind the readers that even in 2008 when Jerusalem was attacked by successive bulldozer attacks, the state of Israel paid for the terrorists’ funerals, and that this is unfortunately a common occurrence, it was much more common before the security fence was built, which, though morally skeptical, has stopped 98% of the suicide bombers. I would also like to remind readers that anytime there is a foreign reporter speaking to an issue in the Mid East on TV or in the paper they are doing so from Israel, as the only free press available in the Mid east. I ask that Jstreet either acknowledge Israel’s triumphs as well as failures or stop declaring to speak for my group and state that you speak for yourself. Isn’t that what political discourse truly is?
July 20th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
It is exactly the type of reaction you get from people who are in denial. They do not want to accept the fact that Israel is not always in the right. so they start spluttering about NAZIs and so on.
At the heart of the problem is the fact that Israel does not have the slightest interest in accepting a two state solution, any more than Hamas does. The real reason the two state solution is continuously brought up is that US public opinion cannot support the status quo as a permanent state of affairs.
Once it is understood that Israel will not withdraw from the West Bank under any circumstances, will continue to expand the settlements and put Jewish interests ahead of non-Jewish at every stage, it becomes impossible for progressives to support Israel.
July 20th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
No one’s going batty.
The problem is that J Street misrepresents itself as a Pro-Israel group, when it is actually an Anti-Israel group.
If the people behind J Street were just honest about their identity, instead of playing a Jews for Jesus like game, in order to fool people, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
July 20th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
With all due respect, Avi, I know most of the leadership of J Street and none of them is anti-Israel nor are they fooling themselves or others. They simply hold different beliefs as to how to bring about peace in the region.
July 20th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
The bottom line is J Street is not a Pro-Israel group. In its agenda it repeatedly sides with Hamas and Fatah. It shouldn’t call itself a Pro-Israel group, when it’s not.
J Street cynically exploits a pro-Israel brand, which naturally annoys groups that actually are Pro-Israel.
July 21st, 2009 at 7:20 am
This is a huge relief fro their community especially those in America.
July 21st, 2009 at 9:40 am
Avi & Noah, before you accuse J-Street and its supporters of being “anti-Israel,” please try explaining to the rest of us how your resistance to the ultimate goal of Zionism — namely, the reintegration of the Jewish people in its native region of the world with all the national dignity it deserves — is supposed to be “pro-Israel.”
July 21st, 2009 at 11:28 am
Noah and Avi: I was critical of the federal government while Bush was president. Very critical. Very very critical. I never had a good thing to say about our government over the course of 8 years. Admittedly, not everything the Bush administration did was bad. Funding for AIDS/HIV prevention in Africa comes to mind. I can’t say I spent very much time reciting these accomplishments. I would say that typing that sentence is about it, actually. Many of my statements about my country and its policies during this time were very similar, some might say, in content, rhetoric, and tone, to statements by Pat Buchanan, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Il, and even Osama Bin Laden. But in point of fact, I love my country, and the only thing that makes me in any way similar to the names I’ve mentioned is that we all didn’t like what Bush was doing.
I believe that Israel’s security and continued existence is vital. I think this makes me “pro-Israel.” I also have very little that is positive to say about their current policies. I can see how they got there, I can sympathize, but I think they are doing great harm to others and to themselves. In other words, I think my position is very similar to the position of the people at J Street. Does this make me “anti-Israel”? If so, how? I think you will find it very difficult to construct a logically valid argument as to how my position makes me “anti-Israel.” But I imagine, based on your comments thus far, that logical validity is not something you consider to be of importance. (Hint: Guilt by association, affirming the consequent, and circular reasoning are not valid approaches to argument.)
July 21st, 2009 at 3:57 pm
I am a liberal, center-left Democrat and a proud Zionist. To me, J Street is a JOKE.
July 24th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
J Street is to Israel as Jews for Jesus is to Judaism. Let’s face it. There are many self hating Jews that want to attack all forms of Jewish support for a strong safe Israel. They are for Humanistic Judaism. They are for pluralism. They are for Yiddish speaking socialist culture. They celebrate the Holocaust. But they absolutely despise a strong Israel. They despise an Israel that fights to protect its Jewish citizens from Arab terror. They have shame. I say let them choke on their self hatred while the majority of sane Jews support a strong successful and safe Israel. Perhaps the J Streeters need to eat some hot Shabbos meat chulent and tasty shmaltz herring with a shot or two of scotch, rather than choke down stale cheerios and cold milk. Good Shabbos !!!
July 29th, 2009 at 3:46 am
I think much of the outrage against J-street comes from three points:
1) They are emerging at a time when the “pro-Israel” factions have the job of supporting Bibi and Lieberman, wich is a tough sell to do rationally, much like the selling of Sarah Palin. Everyone knows that when your goods have no quality, you make a circus out of promoting it and try to smear those who serve better products.
2) They are emerging at the tme of the great implosion of the Republican party, and the collapse of the rhetoric of Rove. As the election shows, the demography has swung in favour of the dems, and the right just doesnt have the intelectual power or integrity to discuss on fair terms. Thus, namecalling, fanaticsm, accusation, conspiracy theories etc.
3) They dont get on with the program, and they dont use the official hasbara playbook, instead they speak the political language of the contemporary west. As any linguist or memetic scientist can tell you, one of the greatest dangers to a dominant paradigm is to face inside opposition employing different linguistic codes. From a Israeli pov, they are loose cannons, and so not part of the “pro-Israeli” *team*. That makes them dangerous, and makes people hysterical. The Hagee-part of the lobby just woke up and found they were communication-dinosaurs facing a new era. They dont do adaption and evolution very well, in fact they dont believe in it, and they will not face extinction very gracefully.
Of course, the fact that Israel seems to be slipping into some sort of semi-collective PTSD doesnt help either. Read the comments (and most articles as well) at Jerusalem Post and weep.