J Street: Two Years after its Formation

Two years ago, J Street, a newly registered pro-Israel lobby, hit the American Streets with optimism, vitality and promise. Its thrust: To replace or diminish the punch of the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC).

J Street intends to subdue AIPAC’s charge and steer United States Middle East policy towards bringing peace to the Middle East – a worthy objective reinforced with strong rhetoric – two state solution, achieve regional comprehensive peace, broaden debate on issues, diplomatic solutions favored over military solutions, an immediate and total freeze of settlement construction, Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem to be under Israeli sovereignty and Arab neighborhoods to be under Palestinian sovereignty. Nevertheless, long time critics of Israel’s policies suspect J Street could have unintended consequences; will not achieve objectives and might sidetrack activists from properly engaging Israel.

J Street’s challengers accuse it of couching objectives in dubious language with words such as favored, broaden, should support; of not providing rigorous plans to achieve the objectives (such as changing the Israeli administration); of a commitment to Israel that does not sufficiently recognize the seriously oppressive nature of Israel’s policies. How far will J Street go in modifying present Israel? Will it be enough to bring peace to the Middle East or only enough to satisfy J Street’s ambitions for Israel? A lingering doubt has J Street with another “Good guy/ Bad guy” routine; a familiar characteristic of Israel’s political scene? In this routine the out of power Party promises to undo the extremist policies of the Party in power and then, when in power, continues the same extreme policies, while the ‘extremist’ Party, now out of power, promises similar changes.

In its annual reports for 2008 and 2009, J Street shows organization and support. The lobby has raised sufficient funds for a $3 million dollar budget (AIPAC budget is $75 million), has a campus arm, and has sponsored meetings all over the nation. It claims successful financing for selected congressional candidates.

This claim intends to overshadow AIPAC’s principle aims, which are obtaining congressional allegiance to Israel and support for arms delivery to their favored nation. However, J Street does not exclude in its program; the same objectives which most annoy AIPAC’s detractors.

Examine a sampling of candidates supported by J Street and we find they have one policy in common – intensive allegiance to Israel.

Jeff Merkley D-Senator Oregon:

“I strongly support the US-Israel relationship, a mutually beneficial bond made stronger by common values, histories, and dedication to democratic principles. Our first and unassailable commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel.”

Gary Peters D-Mi:

“Israel is the lone democracy in a sea of tyranny. In Congress I will fight to make sure that the U.S. – Israeli relationship remains strong.”

Tom Perrielo D-Va:

Voted for House Resolution 867 “Calling on the President and the Secretary of State to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the ‘Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict.’ (Goldstone Report)

The lobby has supported Donna Edwards, a Maryland congresswoman with high marks from Arab groups for her fair minded attitudes. Score one for J Street.

J Street’s leader, Jeremy Ben Ami, in an interview with Jefffrey Goldberg, confirmed his support for military assistance to Israel.

… the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel, the essential security guarantee that the U.S. provides, the notion that Israel should always have a qualitative military edge — those are things that have been achieved by lobbying, by what some people would call the “Israel lobby.” J Street is very happy with these achievements, and we support those ends, and we respect and admire much of what groups like AIPAC and others have done over the years.

Possibly, two years is insufficient to judge the effectiveness of a lobby organization. Nevertheless, after two years, J Street’s accomplishments are meager and have not influenced any administration policies. J Street has neither impeded AIPAC’s effectiveness nor been able to convince the administration to implement any of its proposals. Despite charges of its members receiving unauthorized government information, AIPAC continues its successful lobbying efforts without loss of momentum. Peace in the Middle East never looked more discouraging. J Street provides hope, but its inconsistencies, its incomplete agenda, its vagueness, and what it does not say, has not turned hope into accomplishment.

To its credit, J Street refused to support House Resolution 867, which condemned the Goldstone Commission report on Operation Cast Lead, but “would be able to support a resolution that recognized the history of bias against Israel at the United Nations, the flaws in the original mandate to the Goldstone Commission and the dangers in pursuing resolutions in multilateral fora with a track record of anti-Israel bias; and condemns the series of one-sided resolutions adopted by the UN Human Rights Council.”

The lobby also stated it “further urges the Obama Administration to make every effort to oppose and defeat the one-sided and biased resolution that is likely to be presented in the General Assembly and to work actively for the adoption of a better, balanced resolution. We urge the United States to make clear that it will use its veto to prevent any referral of this matter to the International Criminal Court.”

Rather than supporting existing movements that are taking action against Israel’s oppressive policies, J Street steers them to opposing polices. The Campus Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel has taken off. J Street intends to bring BDS back to the ground. J Street statement:

“This BDS movement is spreading to campuses across the country, but we should be investing – not divesting – in our campus debate, in our communities and in the people who will bring about change in the region.”

J Street’s principal goal is ”The creation of a viable Palestinian state as part of a negotiated two-state solution, based on the 1967 borders with agreed reciprocal land swaps.” The lobby adds that “The future Palestinian state will require unprecedented levels of international economic and political support to succeed, including a resolution of the refugee issue within the new Palestinian state and in current host countries.”

Note the vagueness of the goals (viable Palestinian state) and the lack of any demands on Israel for achieving the goals. Negotiations? What type? Solution based on 1967 borders “with agreed reciprocal land swaps.” Why not just 1967 borders? Refugee issue resolved by the Palestinians and host countries? What about the nation which created the refugees?

If J Street represents a progressive and just wing of the Jewish community, why doesn’t it exercise its duty to that community? Why is it engaged in telling both sides and the U.S. what to do? Why doesn’t it have as its main thrust proposals for redefining a new Israel that is not virulently nationalist, not militarist, not racist and not a democracy for only its Jewish citizens?

The new Jewish Lobby received much publicity from its recent voyage to the Middle East with House Representatives (Reps. Lois Capps (CA-23), William Delahunt (MA-10), Bob Filner (CA-51), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH-15), and Donald Payne (NJ-10). Weren’t all the congressionals already familiar with the Middle East crisis? Did they need the trip as much as those who had little familiarity with the crisis and were vehement supporters of Israel? Why invite the converted and not those who need to be converted? From its identification with the congressional critics of Israel, J Street gained credibility with those favoring the two state solution for peace. Could that be the reason?

Nor did the trip seem sufficiently meaningful for benefiting the peace process. The delegation met with present and ex-politicians in Jerusalem, Ramallah and Amman, talked with Israeli settlers, families in Sderot, human rights activists, Gilad Shalit’s father, and descendants of Palestinian refugees. No visits to West Bank refugee camps or troubled areas. No visit to Gaza. Was the trip designed for U.S. legislators to convince Israel of its wrongs or for Israel to convince the legislators of their wrongs?

Compare that mission with Rep. Brian Baird’s (D-WA) visit to the Gaza Strip at the same time. The retiring congressman stated that “Israel is squeezing the life out of Gaza with the embargo,” and declared that “the Israeli army visited indiscriminate destruction on the area during last year’s Gaza war.” Baird urged President Barack Obama to break Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip. He said, “We ought to bring roll-on, roll-off ships and roll them right to the beach and bring the relief supplies in, in our version of the Berlin airlift.”

Criticism by Jewish groups of AIPAC’s extremist policies is welcoming, not only because AIPAC is able to skew American foreign policy but also because its actions reflect poorly on the Jewish community and arouse anti-Jewish sentiments. Heard in the land is the oft repeated phrase: “The Jews are trying to control the government for their own benefit.”

If J Street didn’t lobby, but behaved similarly to Great Britain’s Independent Jewish Voices in combating one-sided expressions and their harmful effects on the Jewish people, and also spoke out more aggressively against Israel’s oppressive policies and their clash with Jewish ideals, then J Street would contribute to an improved understanding of the Middle East crisis and smother the anti-Jewish feeling arising from AIPAC lobbying and Israel’s actions. However J Street’s lobbying activities tend to reinforce AIPAC’s mischief.

AIPAC brings on its boat the extremist Jews who, allied with the Christian Right, an organization reviled by all Jews, profess “An Israel first” philosophy. J Street throws a grappling hook to the disaffected Jews who are straying from identification with Israel and its virulently nationalist, militarist and oppressive policies. There might be a shift in the ranks, but J Street, knowingly or unknowingly, essentially caters to another clientele. This clientele is more considerate and less dogmatic, but J Street still must prove that it does not, in effect, complement AIPAC.

Can any lobby group, which is chauvinist and dedicated to the support of a foreign nation, be welcome in American politics and be permitted to exercise tremendous influence? J Street doesn’t need to be a lobby. It needs to be a spokesperson for the progressive Jewish population, who are sensitive to the plight of the Palestinians, who are feeling the effects of anti-Jewish sentiment due to perception of Israel’s policies as being militaristic and ultra-nationalist, and who don’t want history to brand the Jewish community as the perpetrators of Palestinian destruction.

Dan Lieberman publishes commentaries on foreign policy, economics, and politics at substack.com.  He is author of the non-fiction books A Third Party Can Succeed in America, Not until They Were Gone, Think Tanks of DC, The Artistry of a Dog, and a novel: The Victory (under a pen name, David L. McWellan). Read other articles by Dan.

6 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. bozh said on March 6th, 2010 at 10:27am #

    Two-state ‘solution’ wld be in effect changing and illegal concentration camp into a legal one.
    It wld also then allow ‘legal’ invasions, theft of water or even ‘legal’ expulsion of pal’ns from israel. And not to mention ‘humanitarian interventions’ in pal’s rivalries. And forever? tnx

  2. Rehmat said on March 6th, 2010 at 6:30pm #

    The so-called “Two-state” solution is to make Zionist occupation of Arab Palestine permanent – was the brainchild of the pro-Israel US president Dubya Bush, who, in 2003 declared that Palestinian need a separate state aka a Palestinian Bantustan. While Bush Zionist administration was pushing the PA leaders to accept the “Two-state” solution – one state (88% of Palestinian land) for Jews only and the other for the Native Muslims and Christians on the remaining land (22%) – Tel Aviv kept establishing new Jewish settlements on Arab lands; kidnapping and murdering civilians in both Gaza Strip and the West Bank to make sure that Palestinian are left with no choice but to keep their resistance against the Jewish occupiers.

    Two-state solution – Can you smell the skunk?

  3. beverly said on March 7th, 2010 at 10:43am #

    It’s good that Rep. Brian Baird has “seen the light” and is speaking out against Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in Gaza. However, one wonders why he waited so long – i.e., until the time he won’t be seeking re-election – before saying what needed to be said years ago. Until we get politicians with the cajones to buck the Israeli Lobby mafia, things in the Middle East won’t be changing for the better. Yes, the Lobby has the money to influence elections, but the people have the last word at the ballot box. Politicians who give a damn about Palestine need to band together with grassroots organizations to educate the public with the truth about the Israel/Palestine issue and how our current one-sided policy is making us less safe, not more and more broke as our tax dollars are used to exacerbate tensions in the Middle East for the benefit of corporations and war profiteers. Informing an ignorant public is not a lost cause. The more people are informed, the better choices can be made in daily life and at the ballot box.

  4. Deadbeat said on March 7th, 2010 at 8:17pm #

    The more people are informed, the better choices can be made in daily life and at the ballot box.

    This is why you are seeing a backlash especially among “liberal” Zionist like Noam Chomsky against the BDS grassroots movement

  5. kalidas said on March 8th, 2010 at 9:35am #

    Don’t underestimate Noam and the boys.
    They’ll be in there leading the opposition sooner than later.

    “729, must decline.”
    Because, let’s face it, when it comes to Israel, there really ain’t many (if any) good 729’s
    That’s baloney.

  6. David Silver said on March 8th, 2010 at 5:39pm #

    A two state solution would legalize the “Jewish State” with control a
    Bantustan entity called a Palestinian State