Certainly critics, particularly Isi Leibler of the Jerusalem Post in a column on September 30, hope that the recent contretemps fueled by J Street founder Jeremy Ben Ami’s lack of clarity about J Street’s funding sources will deal a fatal blow to the progressive Jewish pro Israel movement (or at least push the movement away from J Street). Or if that doesn’t do the trick, maybe the discovery that some J Street staffers made calls to facilitate a few congressional meetings for Richard Goldstone, the head of a U.N. commission seen by critics ( and even J Street, to a large degree), as ultimately unfair and unbalanced in accusing Israel of human rights violations in its Cast Lead campaign, will be the deathblow.
Alas, they are wrong. The energized J Street base is still the energized J Street base. And Ben Ami is smart enough to learn some full disclosure lessons. And all of that bodes well for Israel and an eventual peace agreement with the Palestinians.
Yes, it’s hard to imagine that a majority of J Street’s 160,000 supporters aren’t at least somewhat disappointed that J Street didn’t clearly identify that George Soros had provided 7% of its funding or that a foreign investor also made a sizable contribution. The fact that the Washington Times received the information in violation of I.R.S. rules is immaterial. The nondisclosure is red meat to those in the American Jewish community who have been and continue to be suspicious of J Street’s motives and tactics. The Loyalist wing of the Pro Israel party does not play nicely with its Independent wing.
The Loyalists looks outward. They see virtually any Jewish criticism of an Israeli policy or action as akin to helping countries and terrorist groups that aren’t Israel fans make their delegitimization arguments. They see “in the family” criticism making it easier for a democratic Israel to suffer unfair and unbalanced attacks from autocratic countries that severely discriminate against women, restrict freedom of speech and, in some cases, shelter terrorists and develop weapons of mass destruction. Some Loyalists see Independent wing members as self-hating or disloyal or both. A tinier percentage even view them as “capo”- like facilitators for Israel’s enemies.
However, if the Loyalists were to become more self-reflective and turn their gaze inward they would see several problems, not the least of which is generational. With the majority of American Jews born well after Israel reached a peace agreement with Egypt and Jordan, the point of reference between many Pro Israel party members greatly differs.
Loyalists tend to be older and frame their concerns and actions against the backdrop of the Holocaust and the various wars and intifadas many of them have directly or indirectly experienced since Israel’s founding. (Living in fear of Israel’s extinction does heighten one’s sensitivities.) They tend to view most of the Palestinian leadership as untrustworthy and (not without some historical justification) incapable of organizing effectively enough to actually deliver on any commitments they might make. The Middle East is seen as largely a zero sum game.
On the other hand, many of the Independents tend to be younger. They feel less threatened and are, in their minds, safely assimilated in America. They read in their history books and “on line” about what many Loyalists have lived through. Independents tend to ask more questions and are far less likely to offer 100% support for every Israeli policy or action. Many Independents have experienced some portion of the Mideast conflict, but it has been through a much different, more occluded lens. The Palestinian narrative has more resonance for Independents as it carries a human rights appeal that connects with their traditional Jewish values. They are less likely to view the Palestinian leadership as monolithic and more likely to view Israeli concessions on issues (such as settlements) in the context of peace negotiations that they feel are in Israel’s interest just as much as they are in the Palestinians’ interest.
So when an organization like J Street takes a position that criticism and support for Israel are no more mutually exclusive than is criticism and support for America, the argument has great appeal. It also has great, perhaps unrecognized value: Any hesitation to enthusiastically support Israel is removed as Independents don’t feel constrained by a fear that a public disagreement over Israel’s tactics will be seen as anti-Israel.
It is also reasonable to speculate that Jews that are not currently aligned with either wing of the Pro Israel party — probably somewhere between 60% to 80% of American Jews, if judged based on Jewish Federation contribution levels — are more likely to move from disinterest or uninterest to some form of “pro Israel” engagement. This is now a huge unmobilized base that could be used for much good.
Certainly, it creates internal Pro Israel party conflict when Loyalists try to neatly organize the Independents’ Israel support to fit the way Loyalists prefer that it be delivered. It is more than odd that J Street is seen by the majority of Loyalists as disqualified to join the mainstream of American Jewish organizations just because J Street takes a nontraditional ‘pro Israel” approach. Particularly when Loyalists and Israeli government officials can suddenly welcome the support of Fidel Castro based on one supportive statement about Iran and ignore Castro’s questionable “pro Israel” bona fides, and when the financial support of Pastor Hagee is readily accepted, despite his historic anti-Semitic, anti-women, anti-Muslim rants , it is truly strange to question J Street’s motives.
Why is is so difficult to agree that J Street has made some missteps (as have all Jewish organizations at times and particularly in their formative stages), but still accept the fact that J Street offers Israel the support of a strong deeply “pro Israel” movement?
Of course, J Street’s support is not confined to Independents, although Leibler would disagree about where the support comes from. Leibler suggests that J Street’s support is defined by mainly two groups: “virulent anti-Zionists” and “confused liberals with little Jewish background.” He castigates J Street for their support of President Obama, yet has no tolerance for any American Jewish criticism of Israel’s policies. (It is evidently fine for an Israeli Jew to be critical of American policies that affect Israel, but it is verboten for an American Jew to be critical of an Israeli policy that impacts Americans and particularly American Jews.)
Further, Leibler, an ”out of context quotes selector extraordinaire” misstates J Street’s policy on Israel as one where J Street administers “tough love” to drug addicted children in order to ”force Israel to make unilateral concessions to the Palestinians.” Any fair reading of J Street’s positions — they aren’t hard to find on their website — would likely surprise Leibler because J Street advocates no such thing. But because he is seemingly more interested in prevarication than edification, it is unlikely he has ever ventured past anti-J Street blogs or email strings.
Independents welcome and respect the views and concerns of Loyalists, but they believe more strongly that time is working against Israel’s interests. They are cognizant of Israel’s security needs, but believe if peace is not achieved soon, Israel’s demographic challenges — both from Arab and ultra-Orthodox sectors that are growing faster than the rest of the population —will force Israel to make a terrible choice between remaining a democracy or a Jewish state.
J Street is not without growing Israeli government support. Top Israeli government officials like Tzipi Livni, who invited J Street officials to accompany her on her upcoming trip to America, have encouraged J Street to continue with its mission. And J Street, in what some might say is a reversal of previous policy, is now even welcomed into the “pro Israel” tent by Israel’s Ambassador Oren. He recently acknowledged that J Street is viewed by the Israeli government as an influential American Jewish organization that will be an asset in helping Israel implement any future peace agreement with the Palestinians.
J Street’s recent problems are an annoyance. They are a distraction. But J Street is destined to survive and thrive and are an increasingly important and influential member within the American Jewish tent, even if some Loyalists within the tent have yet to recognize that. The sooner they do, the better for the Pro Israel party.
{ 1 trackback }