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

Dealing With Disruption

"This is still a free country.
Some of you may not like it that way, but it still is!"
Governor Nelson Rockefeller responding to thunderous booing at the Republican National Convention in 1964.

During the next few years President Lyndon Johnson and officials of his administration could not speak at any college (except military academies) without being shouted down. Vice President Hubert Humphrey was interrupted by shouts of "Dump the Hump!" at almost every public speech in the 1968 presidential campaign. And recently neo-conservative speaker David Horowitz was interrupted and insulted while trying to speak on "Islamo-fascism" (1) at the University of Wisconsin -Milwaukee (UWM). According to Horowitz, the reception at UWM was the worst he had ever experienced.

About a week before the speech Horowitz had bought an advertisement in the UWM Post (a student newspaper) in which he lambasted the local chapter of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, a jihadist group started in Egypt which also spawned Hamas. The MSA responded with a hand-out featuring a cartoon of Horowitz with a typically-Jewish hooked nose (not his real appearance) and wearing a Nazi-style armband labeled "H" in place of the swastika. It accused Horowitz of being a "rightwing hate monger" and "Judeofascist" . The screed urged readers to attend the Horowitz speech, facetiously promising that "Flaming crosses and Stars of David will be supplied to those who arrive early. Join the crusade!"

Since the audience had to pass through airport-style security checkpoints, flaming crosses were nowhere in sight. However, when the speaker entered the room, he was greeted with a chorus of boos among the applause and cheers. Several officers of UWM campus police were on hand, but apparently their orders were just to prevent violence and damage to university property.

After Horowitz was introduced by a leader of the UWM Conservative Union, which had invited him, he was left alone to deal with the raucous crowd. Despite his offer to answer questions after the talk, he was interrupted with catcalls and insults repeatedly. A microphone was provided for those who wished to ask questions, but most of those who used it merely berated and insulted the speaker. Eventually, several noisy young people were thrown out, but there always seemed to be plenty of protesters left.

In retrospect, this was a predictable travesty, especially in view of numerous hostile shouts during the Walid Shoebat speech on December 4, 2007, also sponsored by the Conservative Union. Then UWM Professor Shale Horowitz was put in charge of the question period, but he could not control the situation. (2)

Whenever a controversial speaker's appearance is made "free and open to the public", you can count on hostile people attending. The publication of the ad attacking MSA just a few days before the event was probably intended to spur publicity and attendance, and provoke a newsworthy confrontation. The MSA leadership could have ignored the whole thing, in which case the audience for Horowitz would have been about 25% smaller, and the event would have drawn far less attention. Although MSA is hostile to David Horowitz, the group is more than willing to play its assigned role in making the author/speaker more newsworthy and important than he would be otherwise. These confrontations help Horowitz generate more speaking gigs and command higher fees. The MSA was baited, and they gladly bit the bait!

The Conservative Union learned nothing from the Shoebat event. When a hostile audience is expected, the sponsoring group should not leave the speaker alone to contend with a raucous crowd. Rather, the group should designate a capable Program Manager to deal with disrupters while the speaker concentrates on delivering the speech. Ideally, the Program Manager should be someone with a commanding presence, with the power to eject anyone making trouble . Sheriff David Clarke would have been a perfect choice for this role, especially if he had a few deputies with him. Leaving the 69-year old Horowitz to deal with the problem on his own was the worst possible strategy.

It was obvious all along that providing a microphone for questions would simply give the disrupters a louder voice for their insults. When Nonie Darwish (3) spoke at Cardinal Stritch University in October, 2006, all questions had to submitted in writing to the Program Manager (me), who then read them to the invited speaker. There was only one interruption, and the man who caused it was promptly ejected.

I support the vigorous and lively exchange of ideas, especially on the college campus. I have personally attended many speeches by men that I did not agree with, including George Lincoln Rockwell, George Wallace, and Robert Welch. It is regrettable that some people think that their freedom of speech includes the freedom to stop others from hearing a message that they do not like.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) "Islamo-fascism" is a kind of fascism in the same sense that a computer-mouse is a kind of mouse. Real fascism calls for utlimate allegiance to the State, not to one's religion. I prefer " jihadism."

(2)See the Glazerbeam of December 5, 2007.

(3) The daughter of an Egyptian terrorist, she converted to Christianity and now defends Israel in speeches and a book. Even though Stritch was a must more friendly venue for her message than UWM, the precautions taken against "hijacking the event" by protesters were justified