Dead End on J Street
"We support dialogue with a broad range of countries and actors, including Iran, over confrontation...."
J Street Statement of Principles, Point 6
J Street is a new Jewish-American lobby dedicated to influencing American policy in the Middle East in the direction of a negotiated, two-state solution to the Arab-Israel conflict. The name of the group is a variation of the term "K Street" which refers to a Washington street known for a plethora of lobbying firms. I presume that the "J" refers to "Jewish", which would make the name an Anglicized form of the German "Judengasse", but the group's website (jstreet.org) does not say so.
Several of the points in the group's Statement of Principles are widely held within the Jewish and Zionist communities: Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people with the right to defend itself (Point 2) and a comprehensive regional peace (Point 4). However, J Street distances itself from mainline pro-Israel organizations such as AIPAC (1) and ZOA (2) with points such as that quoted above and a resolve to "oppose alliances with the religious right or any radical religious ideologues..."
Who are the "actors" with whom J Street seeks dialogue in the Point 6 quotation? Executive Director Jeremy Ben-Ami wants a US dialogue with Hamas, according to a quotation in the May 29, 2008, New Republic (3). If this represents the J Street position, the group is at odds not only with the government of Israel, but also with those of the United States and the European Union.
In an essay in The Forward (4), Ben-Ami wrote that "An immediate negotiated end to the conflict is an existential necessity." In most negotiations, the party who needs an immediate agreement is the one who must make the most generous concessions. Does this concern Mr Ben-Ami?
The raison d'etre for J Street is alignment of most American Jews with liberalism, while conservatives have been the most reliable allies of Israel, both in the United States and Europe.
Prior to World War II, the left side of the American political spectrum, led by President Franklin D Roosevelt, was the faction more supportive of a military build-up against Fascism, while the American right favored a more conciliatory posture. Many conservatives in the pre-war period considered Nazi Germany a valuable bulwark against the Soviet Union and communism, and opposed US alignment with England, France, and Russia. Ambassador Joseph Kennedy even predicted that "England would go down swinging." Pearl Harbor changed all that, and for the next four years left and right were both ardent supporters of the war effort.
The bi-partisan foreign policy of opposition to the expansion of communist power collapsed about twenty years after the end of World War II as a consequence of the War in Vietnam. With communism, rather than fascism, as the enemy, the American Left became aligned with the forces of pacifism, while the Right became more militant. When Israel became the dominant power in Gaza and the West Bank in 1967, the Left (both in the US and elsewhere) took up the cause of the Palestinians. Meanwhile, many US conservatives (such as Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, but not Patrick Buchanan, George H W Bush or James Baker) became more enamoured of Israel.
American Jews have been "whipsawed" by these developments, being attracted to liberal politicians for their domestic policies and conservatives for their support for Israel. AIPAC finessed this tension by avoiding taking positions on domestic issues or expressing any party preferences, while wooing all who might be inclined to back the US-Israel relationship.
The alliance between pro-Israel conservatives (especially the religious Right) and Jews became too much for the founders of J Street. Actually, their policy of pressuring Israel into making concessions to the Palestinians differs only in rhetoric from that of President George W Bush, whom they despise. Even the call for dialogue with Iran has been accepted by the Bush Administration, although the Islamic Republic recently cancelled further talks.
The J Street support for talks with Hamas, however, is doomed since the latter has no intention of making peace with Israel. Nothing J Street can say or do can change that fact. Even Barack Obama, the darling of the liberals today, rejects talking to Hamas.
J Street, along with Americans for Peace Now and other peace activists, will be a factor in American politics for the foreseeable future, but unless the Palestinians and Iranians change their tune, it will be overwhelmed by the established Israel Lobby.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
(2) Zionist Organization of America.
(3) Street Cred, by James Kirchik, page 14.
(4) April 15, 2008
J Street Statement of Principles, Point 6
J Street is a new Jewish-American lobby dedicated to influencing American policy in the Middle East in the direction of a negotiated, two-state solution to the Arab-Israel conflict. The name of the group is a variation of the term "K Street" which refers to a Washington street known for a plethora of lobbying firms. I presume that the "J" refers to "Jewish", which would make the name an Anglicized form of the German "Judengasse", but the group's website (jstreet.org) does not say so.
Several of the points in the group's Statement of Principles are widely held within the Jewish and Zionist communities: Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people with the right to defend itself (Point 2) and a comprehensive regional peace (Point 4). However, J Street distances itself from mainline pro-Israel organizations such as AIPAC (1) and ZOA (2) with points such as that quoted above and a resolve to "oppose alliances with the religious right or any radical religious ideologues..."
Who are the "actors" with whom J Street seeks dialogue in the Point 6 quotation? Executive Director Jeremy Ben-Ami wants a US dialogue with Hamas, according to a quotation in the May 29, 2008, New Republic (3). If this represents the J Street position, the group is at odds not only with the government of Israel, but also with those of the United States and the European Union.
In an essay in The Forward (4), Ben-Ami wrote that "An immediate negotiated end to the conflict is an existential necessity." In most negotiations, the party who needs an immediate agreement is the one who must make the most generous concessions. Does this concern Mr Ben-Ami?
The raison d'etre for J Street is alignment of most American Jews with liberalism, while conservatives have been the most reliable allies of Israel, both in the United States and Europe.
Prior to World War II, the left side of the American political spectrum, led by President Franklin D Roosevelt, was the faction more supportive of a military build-up against Fascism, while the American right favored a more conciliatory posture. Many conservatives in the pre-war period considered Nazi Germany a valuable bulwark against the Soviet Union and communism, and opposed US alignment with England, France, and Russia. Ambassador Joseph Kennedy even predicted that "England would go down swinging." Pearl Harbor changed all that, and for the next four years left and right were both ardent supporters of the war effort.
The bi-partisan foreign policy of opposition to the expansion of communist power collapsed about twenty years after the end of World War II as a consequence of the War in Vietnam. With communism, rather than fascism, as the enemy, the American Left became aligned with the forces of pacifism, while the Right became more militant. When Israel became the dominant power in Gaza and the West Bank in 1967, the Left (both in the US and elsewhere) took up the cause of the Palestinians. Meanwhile, many US conservatives (such as Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, but not Patrick Buchanan, George H W Bush or James Baker) became more enamoured of Israel.
American Jews have been "whipsawed" by these developments, being attracted to liberal politicians for their domestic policies and conservatives for their support for Israel. AIPAC finessed this tension by avoiding taking positions on domestic issues or expressing any party preferences, while wooing all who might be inclined to back the US-Israel relationship.
The alliance between pro-Israel conservatives (especially the religious Right) and Jews became too much for the founders of J Street. Actually, their policy of pressuring Israel into making concessions to the Palestinians differs only in rhetoric from that of President George W Bush, whom they despise. Even the call for dialogue with Iran has been accepted by the Bush Administration, although the Islamic Republic recently cancelled further talks.
The J Street support for talks with Hamas, however, is doomed since the latter has no intention of making peace with Israel. Nothing J Street can say or do can change that fact. Even Barack Obama, the darling of the liberals today, rejects talking to Hamas.
J Street, along with Americans for Peace Now and other peace activists, will be a factor in American politics for the foreseeable future, but unless the Palestinians and Iranians change their tune, it will be overwhelmed by the established Israel Lobby.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
(2) Zionist Organization of America.
(3) Street Cred, by James Kirchik, page 14.
(4) April 15, 2008
Labels: "J Street" Israel, AIPAC, Zionist
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 9:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home