J-Street: In the Wrong Corner

Finally, there is a new Jewish lobby, said to be dedicated to the security of Israel, called J-Street. Sadly, from day one it defined Israel's number one enemy as --another pro Israel lobby, another group of American Jews, namely, AIPAC. Jews have excelled in many areas, but in none have they done nearly as well as in hating each other and in generating factions and sub factions that fight one another, even when the enemy is at the gate. (There are already fights within J-Street).

The number one concern of the new political action group, organized by a small band of lobbyists, is to raise money. The easiest way to raise money is to engage in negative advertising. To mobilize people to dig into their pockets, lobbyists know, you must be against someone, define someone as the enemy. For J-Street that enemy is not Iran, nor Hezbollah, nor Hamas, but the strongest pro-Israel lobby in Washington.

One wishes the new J-Street lobby would follow its declared aim and look for peaceful, diplomatic solutions to the tragic conflicts that bedevil the Middle East, and that their opening shot would be some new way to make peace or a revival of an effective old way. Unfortunately, this is not what you will find in their PR onslaught or any other place.

Professor Shibley Telhami (a Palestinian-American) and I (an Israeli-American) have called upon on both the Israelis and the Palestinians to stop blaming each other, stop trying to show that the other side is at fault and hence must be the one to yield if peace is to have a prayer. We suggested that for now the focus should be on where we go from here, which clearly requires both sides to make concessions. Later there will be room for a truth commission to sort out who was at fault, although most likely there is plenty of blame to go around. [Read the full text here.]

I outlined in a previous post [here] an approach to peace which would be based a two state solution, a return to the green line (following minor adjustments in both directions), two capitals in Jerusalem, and a right to return (after the number of Arabs who left Israel and seek to return is calculated to be reduced by the number of Jews who left Arab countries). There surely is room for many other quests for a peaceful solution.

J-Street, however, does not embrace any of the various formulas for peace. Sadly, it was launched with a vicious attack on fellow Jews who support Israel, accusing them of being right wingers who are allied with religious Christians, and for having "hijacked" Washington.

The timing could not be much more inauspicious. The threat to Israel's very existence is greater than it has been since it was established 60 years ago. Iran does not need a nuclear weapon to finish off Israel. No one is denying or questioning that Hezbollah has accumulated a very large number of long range missiles. When Hezbollah used its short range missiles following the very ill advised Israeli incursion into southern Lebanon in 2006, the northern half Israel had to be evacuated. The Israeli military found no effective counter measures against these attacks. After 38 days of fighting, Hezbollah was firing more missiles at the Israel than on the first day. Long range missiles would easily reach Tel Aviv, and there just is no way the city can be evacuated. In addition, Syria is reported to be standing by, more than ready to join the fray.

All this argues for greater efforts for peace. Surely no one group has a monopoly on promoting peace. And surely there is considerable room for questioning the tactics employed by AIPAC. But sadly J-Street shows no sign that it has found a realistic way to promote peace in this tragic part of the world. Hold on to your check until they mend their ways.

Amitai Etzioni is a professor of international relations at The George Washington University and the author of Security First: For a Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy. For more on the subject, visit www.securityfirstbook.com. He can be contacted at [e-mail].

Comments

[NABNYC]

The best way to end this disaster in the middle east is for the U.S. to get out. We supply arms, foment hatred, encourage genocide, and evoke resentment. And we bribe all the corrupt governments, and they, in turn, take a percentage off the top and pay it back to our politicians for their share of the bribes. Everyone loses except the dictators and corrupt politicians.

Any group that wants to try to create peace, be my guest. But stop taking American money and giving it to Israel. This is the biggest con, and it must end. Or is the idea that one group will bribe the U.S. politicians to do one thing, and another group will bribe the U.S. politicians to do something else?

Israel is not a part of the U.S. The people in Israel want their own nation, they should grow up and take responsibility for solving their own problems, instead of continuously corrupting the U.S. politicians and stealing money from our taxpayers.

The loud sucking sound you hear is money leaving the U.S. and headed to Israel. Not just from the government, but also from the right-wing "Christian" churches all over the country who are so stupid they've convinced their protestant members to "tithe" to Israel. (You won't find any Catholics sending money to Israel under the "End of Days" story). U.S. Out of Israel.

[S1m0n]

If AIPAC was satisfactory, there'd be no need for this group at all.

Of course they can't ignore AIPAC: "A new group? What's wrong with AIPAC?" is question number one. J Street is explicitly schismatic. When you scold the folks launching a schism for being divisive, you're missing the point by a very wide margin. Division--­presenting a vision of Israel and of peace that AIPAC opposes--is their raison d'etre, because it is their bel;ief that AIPAC doesn't not fairly represent (in fact, misrepresents) the currents of jewish american opinion.

[Lon]

This is an oddly incoherent post. It criticizes J-street for being critical of AIPAC. But obviously if it is legitimate to criticize J-Street it is legitimate to criticize AIPAC. And there does not seem to be any content to the criticism. AIPAC has taken precisely the kind of maximalist positions which you correctly identify as the problem. While J-Street has shunned such an approach. So you seem to be in the odd position of criticizing J-Street for supporting proposals like yours while they criticize AIPAC for opposing them.

Possibly if you actually linked to what you find objectionable it would be clearer why you think there is a problem. Having gone to the website on my own I find it to be a site pushing to support the kinds of candidates who are likely to fight for the kind of proposal that you claim they are not supporting.

Your discussion of the conflict in Lebanon is equally puzzling in this context. If we all agree that this is an important time for peace, then why would that lead one to think that we should all unify behind policies that are inconsistent with peace? If you think that J-Street has the wrong approach to peace and AIPAC the right one, then an argument is needed here. Instead there just seems to be a jews shouldn't criticize jews even if doing so imperils Israel and leaves the Palestinians in inhuman condistions type of argument. Which is silly.

[altohone]

Mr. Etzioni,

AIPAC advocates policies in direct opposition to your stated peace plan.

Criticism from the enemies of Israel hasn't gotten through.
Your criticisms haven't dented the debate.
Who better than an organized group in America to challenge the flawed ideology that has steered policy into disaster?

I'm sure Kerry's advisors telling him to ignore the swiftboaters for a month meant well, but the reality is that those advocating opposing views MUST be challenged.
The right-wing policies advocated by AIPAC, successfully sold to a majority in Congress, are a roadblock to your own efforts and those of us interested in peace, and the campaign money behind them will continue to hold sway until it is matched or ended.

You should be getting behind J-Street.

[magen]

What's wrong with having an alternative to the viewpoint of AIPAC?

AIPAC justifies EVERYTHING the government of Israel does.

Many people believe that in the long run, more peace and security can be achieved in compromise than aggression.

[jhNY]

The threat to the existence of Palestinians has never been greater than today either, if life in Gaza is any indicator. The cutting off of fuel supply, medicine and food has become routine for the Israeli military surrounding the area, as has the practice of political assassination.

Gallons of ink have been wasted on the excuses for this barbarity, but one day you're going to have to answer this question: If the Israelis are sincerely working to achieve peace and abide by international law, how many housing units have they built in pre-1967 Israel for the expected influx of settlers from the territories since the peace process began? I know the answer and so do you. Not a one.

As we here in the US are discovering, to our bewildered surprise, the reflexive use of military force to solve politcal problems will wreck any nation's economy, as well as destroy the ethical values of the citizenry. Sorry there's squabbling amongst the lobbying groups, but I'm glad to see anybody from any quarter jump up to challenge the Likudniks and their local enablers.

[JacobSinger]

I can understand the stress this must be causing within the American Jewish community, but it is an event much appreciated by liberals / progressives. That such is appreciated should come as no surprise, as AIPAC has long been viewed a stronghold for Jewish NeoConservatives, a faction of the GOP that many of us considered to be the key factor in the horrendous foreign policy mistakes made by BushCo. To me AIPAC represents Israel's Client State status with the US, and the illogical and dogmatic defense of all things Israeli by US governent officials.

While hard, definitive evidence may be difficult to come by, I can't help but feel that Israel is a prime enabler of US Imperial goals in the Middle East, and that the co-dependently dysfunctional nature of US / Israeli relations is detrimental to both nations, and even more pointedly so for the Palestinians.

Until we non-jewish Americans can express an opinion that doesn't support AIPAC's political position without being automatically labeled as anti-semetic, many progresives will welcome the J-Street lobby and their efforts, despite whatever short comings they may have.

[SamThornton]

Mr. Etzioni states above, "J-Street, however, does not embrace any of the various formulas for peace."

In looking at the J-Street website, however, J-Street sets out a peace formula virtually indistinguishable from the two-state solution Mr. Etzioni articulates above. See http://www.jstreet.org/page/israel-palestine

Sorry, but this seems like another of those finger-pointing, "inside-baseball" style discussions where the disputes are over points that don't really make a difference.

The point Mr. Etzioni, AIPAC and J-Street ignore, and which must be central to any discussion of a US role in the Middle-East, is exactly what is in America's best interests and whether, in fact and for what reasons, the US should have any involvement in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

[ESK]

It concerns me that this type of factionalism is growing. On the other hand I think that it is pertinent to recognize that all too often American Jews have developed a mind set that Israel can do no wrong. At least that's how we portray ourselves to others. I think that this is less the case inside of Israel where strong differences of opinion about how to approach the Palestinians are out in the open. Too often our approach here in the US is to expect what often feels like blind allegience to Israel. We demand this of ourselves and our politicians. Unfortunately this makes it difficult to find realistic common ground. It would be best if Jewish organizations would come together to find that reasonable common ground so that we can present ourselves as united. Unfortunately there are too many with ultra loud voices on at each extreme of the argument that are driving the conversation.