The Emergency Committee for Israel, an advocacy group launched by Bill Kristol and other neoconservative activists, and J Street, the 2-year-old outfit that bills itself as a liberal "pro-Israel, pro-peace" voice, recently aired dueling ads about Joe Sestak, the Democratic nominee for Senate in Pennsylvania.
The Emergency Committee went first, with a menacing spot that asked, "Does congressman Joe Sestak understand Israel is America’s ally?" J Street's defensive response was telling. "In Congress, Sestak consistently votes to aid Israel," the group informed Pennsylvanians.
The ad, needless to say, didn't bother to question why the U.S. should be spending so much money on Israel in the first place. So much for challenging the assumptions of the pro-Israel establishment.
J Street, which launched in April 2008 to great fanfare under the helm of Jeremy Ben-Ami, a former advisor to President Bill Clinton, was founded in part to "ensure a broad debate on Israel and the Middle East in national politics and the American Jewish community." That debate has largely been dominated by unquestioning supporters of Israel and all its actions.
But despite the hysterical rhetoric from the likes of Alan Dershowitz and Commentary magazine, who like to claim that J Street is agitating for radical policy change, the new group has done little to broaden the constricted U.S. debate over Israel/Palestine.
Instead, J Street has largely given a liberal cover to more right-wing groups like the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, whose line seems to be one of supporting Israel no matter what.
The Goldstone report, a landmark U.N. document that accused both Israel and Hamas of committing war crimes during the 2008-09 Israeli assault on Gaza, and the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement that seeks to pressure Israel to live up to its obligations under international law, are two areas where the J Street line has differed little from AIPAC.
The debate over the Goldstone report was an early indicator of things to come for J Street. When a largely fact-free congressional resolution denouncing the report was about to pass, J Street, which aired some concerns about the resolution and urged Congress to modify it, still ultimately agreed with the thrust of it: "J Street supports passage of a resolution by the U.S. Congress calling for the United States to oppose and work actively to defeat one-sided and biased action in the United Nations when it comes to Israel and the Goldstone Report." That statement was similar to AIPAC’s position on the report, who called it "deeply flawed" and "rigged."
J Street's acquiescence to the establishment line on Israel/Palestine reached its zenith during the University of California at Berkeley debate in March/April 2010 over a student effort to divest from two companies that profit from the Israeli occupation of Palestine. When the president of the student government at Berkeley vetoed the measure, which was passed earlier by an overwhelming margin, J Street joined AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League and the local Israeli consul general in pressuring the student government. J Street joined a wide coalition of groups such as the David Project and the Jewish National Fund that authored a letter labeling the divestment measure as "misleading" and "dishonest." (J Street’s president, Jeremy Ben-Ami, has since said that the group won’t be signing on to similar letters with "organizations like that in group settings again.") Their effort worked -- a measure to override the veto failed by just one vote.
This timidity has earned J Street harsh criticism from the left. An Israeli-authored letter circulated on an activist listserv called on the group to "stop trying to gain political capital at the expense of dedicated peace activists."
It is also creating a vacuum that older, more left-leaning groups like Jewish Voice for Peace are poised to fill. This third pole, which has emerged underneath the surface, is challenging the pro-Israel lobby’s hold on the debate. The future battle, especially in the Jewish-American community, will not be J Street vs. AIPAC, but rather the pro-Israel lobby vs. critical Jewish groups who are questioning the desirability of the U.S.-Israel "special relationship."
The divestment debate at Berkeley and the criticism of J Street is a prominent example of the new battle that is coming to a head within the Jewish community over Israel/Palestine and the Palestinian-led call to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel. The BDS movement started in 2005, and calls on global civil society to use the tactics of boycotting, divesting and sanctioning Israel until it adheres to its obligations under international law. The movement demands that Israel withdraw from the occupied Palestinian territories, implement equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel and recognize the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees and their descendants who fled or were expelled from Palestine during the 1947-49 Israeli-Arab War.
The debate over BDS is heating up. Recently, Jacob Weisberg, the editor in chief at Slate, called the BDS movement "a weapon designed not to bring peace but to undermine [Israel]" and "hard to disassociate from anti-Semitism." The smearing of the BDS movement as anti-Semitic, though, is increasingly losing credibility, especially because groups such as Jewish Voice for Peace and others are backing aspects of the movement. In its latest issue, Tikkun magazine published a debate on BDS between Ben-Ami, Jewish Voice for Peace’s Rebecca Vilkomerson and others, an indication of the growing importance of the movement.
During the Tikkun debate, Ben-Ami argued that those opposed to the Israeli occupation should not engage in BDS tactics that alienate Israelis and should instead "double down on our movement to try to get particularly President Obama to be deeply and actively engaged to outline what a solution is." But with peace talks at a standstill, and President Obama averse to pressuring Israel, the BDS movement will only gain steam -- with or without J Street on board.
The momentum was evident just a few months ago, after the Israeli Navy raided an aid flotilla on its way to Gaza and killed nine people, when a wave of music acts honored the cultural boycott, and garnered attention from major media outlets like the Associated Press and CNN.
While it’s hard to predict when mainstream discourse will allow candid discussion about Israel/Palestine, cracks in the wall are appearing, and they’re only going to get bigger.
This article originally appeared on Salon.com.
Comments
thank g-d. israel has become a fanatical state.
"recognize the “right of return” for Palestinian refugees and their descendants who fled or were expelled from Palestine during the 1947-49 Israeli-Arab War."
Why not simply state that the boycott campaign's goal is the elimination of Israel? It would be more honest, and greatly clear up the confusion in alignments, goals, and rhetoric.
it always sounds rediciolous to me how young jews in united states "allow" themselves to be liberal and bleeding heart when it comes to israel.
they don't live here, most of them never shared the enormous burden of keeping this country safe and stable among the ocean of fanatic- war loving muslims that surround this land and compete among themselves who's more irreconcilable, but these "half assimilated" jews keep spreading advices from their convenient- peaceful homes about how the jews (the sucker ones-those who serve in idf, live in a crowded small state and eat the troubles of the area) should give up the most sacred sites for jewish people, let the arabs return, and be gentle with them- in order to justify their stupid sence of over-liberalism.
you know nothing about the middle east.
show some modesty!!!
Jews have always been persecuted. Israel continuously provides evidence of the causal Jewish behavior. Did German Jews acquire disproportionate media, financial and political control as they have in the United States? Did they then collectively act to the detriment of Germany and thereby precipitate the Holocaust? America’s multiple and continuing mid east wars have all been initiated with the urging of AIPAC, the Conference of Presidents, and other Israeli agencies. All have benefited Israel at our expense. American Jews were central to, and grossly enriched by, the Wall Street obscenity. Israel is a Jewish state, a racist apartheid state by, of, and for the chosen people. It feigns and exploits alliance, but an ally Israel will never be.
"Israel is a Jewish state, a racist apartheid state by, of, and for the chosen people. "
Apartheid
By Apartheid do you mean arabs and jews have segregated beaches, stores, like in S.Africa?
Please provide any and all examples of segregation. As an eye witness & a south african, i can testify there are arabs and jews in the same supermarkets in israel, the same roads and the same cities.. sounds NOTHING like apartheid.
Racist
The desire for Israel to be a jewish state, a state with a unique identity is not racist. It is the will not to be Europistan, or any other country who's national identity has been washed away by an influx of another people. France & Holland and many other countries only realized it when it was too late. There are 22 arab countries that preserve the arab culture, with sharia laws (racist?) that preserve their way of live.. there is 1 Jewish state.
John WV -- It is people like you that cause others to cast suspicion on the entire BDS movement as being anti-Semitic. Unfortunately, you're not the only one. I would've wholeheartedly supported the BDS campaign if not for the blatantly hateful rhetoric espoused by so many in the anti-Israel movement.
To the rest of the BDS movement: If you don't speak up about the almost-automatic attraction of anti-Semites and haters to your movement, you will lose credibility and ultimately hurt your cause. Speak out against all hatred with sincerity, and liberal American Jews will flock to your cause. You haven't done so until now, and it is the Palestinians caught in the middle who will ultimately suffer for it.
Add new comment