We Need 'A Street', Not J Street

I don't quite get the brouhaha that is going on in the Jewish world about J Street. Some Jews are convinced that this new organization poses a threat to Israel's interests, while others are equally passionate about the need for an organization that will counter AIPAC and critique Israeli policy for the sake of peace.

I've heard all the critiques of J Street, and I agree with many of them. But what I still don't get is why people are making such a fuss about an organization whose message is so outdated and unoriginal.

Listen to some of their pronouncements and tell me if they don't equal a triple shot of Valium. Hey, did you know, for instance, that J Street believes in diplomatic solutions over military ones?
And in a negotiated end to the Israeli-Arab and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts?

And get a load of this: They believe in a two-state solution! Two states living side-by-side in peace and security! Because, they say, ending the Palestinian conflict is in the best interests of Israel, the United States, the Palestinians and the region as a whole.

Talk about going out on a limb. J Street believes it's really important that we resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. No kidding. And what's their brilliant brainstorm for how to do that? "Consistent and concerted diplomatic engagement by the United States."

But wait a minute. Haven't we heard all this before? Like maybe 30 years ago -- and at every failed peace meeting since?

Well, yes, but J Street has put a fresh coat of paint on this fixer-upper. They've mastered the art of preaching mind-numbing cliches and making it look like they've found the Holy Grail.

Let's look, for example, at the cliche that "consistent and concerted diplomatic engagement" -- a euphemism for pressuring Israel -- has a positive impact on the peace process. A good example of this engagement has been the demand on Israel to freeze all its settlement construction, a policy that J Street actively promotes.

How has that engagement worked so far?

Let's just say that since the United States made this demand six months ago, the Palestinians have taken to it like a pit bull discovering a tasty dog bone.

Does anyone remember that in the past, the Palestinians would come to the negotiating table without ever asking for this construction freeze -- and that just over year ago, Mahmoud Abbas was knee deep in negotiations with Israel?

J Street is so sure of itself that it is still pushing for this construction freeze, even after it's clear that it has pushed the parties further apart and even after the United States itself has softened its demand.

This shouldn't come as a surprise, because groups like J Street are still stuck in the old paradigm that the key to reaching peace is for Israel to make more concessions. History suggests otherwise. If the other side has been so poisoned that they want your destruction more than they want peace, making unilateral concessions only makes things worse, as we saw after the Gaza withdrawal.

But recognizing this sober reality would wreak havoc on J Street's marketing and fundraising. It's too messy and inconvenient. It would require too much original thinking. Better to stick with milquetoast themes like "pro-peace and pro-Israel" and the need for "broad public and policy debates."

This notion that what's missing right now in the Middle East is a "healthy debate" among American Jews is a narcissistic fantasy. Many "pro-peace, pro-Israel" American Jews, myself included, had plenty of debates when we supported the many concessions for peace Israel has made over the years.

Now that Israeli society has decided to proceed more cautiously, the fact that we're not critiquing the Israeli government doesn't mean we follow them blindly; it means that we agree with them.

And the reason we don't scream so loudly for peace is not because we don't have a group like J Street to help us express ourselves, but because we'd love to see, for a change, some screaming for peace coming from the other side.

If you ask me, what the Middle East needs more than anything today is not a J Street but an A Street.

This would be an Arab organization that would do what no Jewish organization -- left, right or center -- can do: rally peace-seeking Arab moderates to the cause of peaceful coexistence with a Jewish state. If the Jews can rally their own for peace, why can't the Arabs? Why should Jews have an exclusive on self-criticism and internal pressure?

Can you imagine how transformational it would be if a high profile, "pro-Arab, pro-peace" organization pressured Palestinian leaders to dismantle the teaching of Jew-hatred in Palestinian society -- a hatred that has made a mockery of all moves toward peace?

Can you imagine the impact on the peace process if 1,500 Palestinian peace activists gathered in Washington, D.C., for a conference against hatred?

Sure, it sounds like a pipe dream, but not any more so than the outdated delusions coming out of J Street.

 

Follow David Suissa on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SuissaOlam

Comments

[iMissMollyIvins]

What does AIPAC support, other than ever-expanding settlements and keeping Palestinians penned up into ghettos?

[winningticket]

You just compared Paqlestinians to dogs in your article. How can people take what you say seriously?

[WBMD]

Oh Puleeeze!!!
Have you never heard of a simile?

Let me enlighten you with a definition. "A simile is a figure of speech comparing two unlike things, often introduced with the word "like" or "as". Even though similes and metaphors are both forms of comparison, similes allow the two ideas to remain distinct in spite of their similarities."

But more importantly, why would you take offense at one sentence in an entire article, and negate the entire premise of the article? And even more importantly, do you, or anyone, have anything POSITIVE to offer?

[jollyelle]

Concessions made by Israel? It would be a start to see defined borders. Withholding clean water and electricity from people should not come under the category of defense.

There are many Pro Peace Palestinian Groups and they have gathered in the nation's capital as well as a number of other cities.

Criticism of the United States foreign policy with Israel does not happen often, nor very loudly and sources says there is a large percentage of the Israeli population that definitely does not agree with the hawkish Netanyahu government.

[WBMD]

It was the Arabs who refused to define the 1948 armistice lines as acceptable "borders". Israel has clearly defined its border with Gaza, which, again and still, the Palestinians do not accept. That is their right. If Israel "defined" its border as the Jordan River, what benefit would that bring? And it is Israel's right to do so, even if only as an opening position for further negotiation. Nevertheless, successive Israeli governments have offered new "borders", allowing the establishment of a Palestinian state on almost all of the land beyond the 1948 armistice lines, and these offers have all been rejected.

And WHY should any country provide clean water and electricity, or anything, for that matter, to a population that actively supports its elected government, and works with its fighters, in fact, IS its fighters, in the quest to exterminate it? As for Gaza, why doesn't Egypt supply it with water and electricity?

Finally, please provide the names, or links to "pro-peace Palestinian groups" that have "gathered in Washington" to support a policy of acceptance of the historic right of the Jewish state to exist in a part of its ancestral homeland.

[StCuthbert]

Israel provides water and electricity to the Palestinians. If they "withhold" it, it's only because they don't want to give up something for nothing.

[chekhov]

It was a good idea to give the Jews a homeland, but a terrible idea to locate it in Palestine, where the Jews had no major presence for a couple thousand years. Over that time, the Palestinians formed the understandable idea this land belonged to them. Had they not been guided by religious superstition, the UN could have found the Jews a homeland in some hospitable place (a corner of Nebraska?), and much grief avoided. God chose a people? Really? Really?

Mr. Suissa speaks of J Street "delusions" and Israeli "concessions." The concession was the UN giving the Jews a homeland at the expense of the unwilling locals. The Israelis then proceeded to steal more land. If you steal 100 dollars from me, it is not a "concession" to give a dollar back; it is partial justice, awaiting only the other 99. The only delusion lies in minds so warped by religion and nationalism that they think giving back that dollar is a concession.

At this point, Israel should keep the country the UN gave it. The Palestinians, I think, would be better served had they adopted Ghandi's tactics of civil disobedience. The US should not give a dime to the Israelis until they get back inside their borders. All that is achievable here is an approximation of justice, and even that is a remote possibility as long as Mr. Suissa and friends see others as having "delusions" and see themselves as having only "concessions."

[WBMD]

The Jewish homeland is in their homeland. The Jewish people, by definition (as much as one can define) are a people (common language, history, customs, etc.,) and a religion. A religion which originated, and is focused in the Land of Israel, Samaria, and Judea, and specifically centered in, and on, Zion, or Jerusalem.

That history is incontravertible, defines, and justifies the Jews' connection to the land.

Why burden the people of Nebraska, or Uganda, or whatever? The Jews have nothing to connect them there. And with the huge expanses of land under Arab control, why is sharing a tiny part of the Jewish ancestral homeland a "concession" too much to expect?

[Inoku]

You mean the country the UN tried to give it, but couldn't, because the Arab countries rejected that plan?

Israel should keep the country it has won through blood and sweat from the defensive wars it has won over its existence. Maybe the Arabs should stop launching wars of extermination if they want to stop losing land?

[MEN8v]

How can there possibly be a two state solution when the Israeli's continue settlement activity, gobbling up more and more land?

While it may seem acceptable to you to confine the Palestinians to the smallest possible amount of non-contiguous, inhospitable and least desirable land, you ought to be able appreciate this is unacceptable to the Palestinians.

My guess is you would look at the American isolation and assimilation of Native American tribes as a model to be emulated, not a cause for circumspection.

[WBMD]

Good. Then let's stop Israel ""gobbling up more land, and accept the offers Israel has made, before they "gobble up" any more land.

Stop with the Native Americans, already. Stop with dueling, competing narratives. Try to come up with solutions that would be acceptable to both sides. Let's hear something positive.

[lbsaltzman]

Great response. Israel doesn't give Palestinians the slightest hope that they are willing to negotiate a just peace with the Palestinians. It will be difficult for the Palestinians to negotiate as long as they lack a partner for peace in Israel.

The entire attack on J Street seems without merit. The call for a Palestinian group to fight "Jew hatred" seems hypocritical and nonsensical.

[WBMD]

Palestinian "hopes" have always been for the elimination of the Jewish state, so I guess it depends on what the definition of "a just peace" is. Since you have expressed that your ideal solution echoes the Palestinian goal of no independent Jewish state, that phrase, coming from you, is suspect.

Most Israelis feel that what Barak and then Olmert offered, was way beyond "just", and believe that Netanyahu's offer currently on the table, is eminently fair.

Why would an end to "Jew hatred" be "hypocritical and nonsensical"?

[JackWhistle]

Yeeeah.. BS. Perhaps if Israel wasn't in a constant state of committing International crimes toward the Palestinian people (something thats been going on for decades now), the Palestinians would be a little less vitriolic. As it stands, J street for the win.

[bermanator]

Yeeeah.. BS. Perhaps if the Palestinians weren't in a constant state of committing international crimes towards Israel and it's civilian population (something that's been going on for a century now), the Israelis would be a little less defensive. As it stands, J Street is every bit as outdated and useless as this article suggests.

[WBMD]

The Palestinians have been "vitriolic" since the get-go. How has that worked out for them?

Maybe it is time to try something new - if what they want is really a state of their own. If, on the other hand, the goal remains a Middle East without a Jewish state, no J Street, or Obama, or UNHRC will get that done for them.

[lbsaltzman]

The logic of your argument doesn't work for me. Whatever the Palestinians do Israel steals more of their land, using brutal and violent methods to do so. Palestinians have accepted the principle of a two state solution, but so far have found no partner for peace in Israel. So in so far as they would like to see Israel go away, you can hardly blame them.

[Pippilin]

You gotta be kidding.

[kilks401]

how many wars has Israel fought with Egypt since the Camp David peace talks? Clearly obtaining peace in Palestine will be much harder, but you seem to have conveniently forgotten that successful peace negotiation.

[lbsaltzman]

Could it be that peace happened because Israel returned the land they took back to the Egyptians. So far all they do with the Palestinians is steal more land from them.

[WBMD]

First came Sadat, recognizing the right of the Jewish state to live in peace. THEN came the deal on land and settlements.

[StCuthbert]

How does the return of the Gaza Strip entail "all they do is steal more land"? Your comments are getting further and further from reality.

[WBMD]

This excellent article goes to the heart of the matter. Israel cannot and will not make any more concessions, risk its security, in the face of continued incitement by the Palestinians and their supporters in all possible local and international venues. It would not take much from the Palestinians to re-set the paradigm. And the resulting groundswell for peace would be overwhelming of the extremists on both sides.

So let's hear it. An explicit acceptance of the historic right of the Jewish people for a Jewish state in a portion of their ancestral homeland. No more "monkeys and pigs". No more denial of the Jewish Temple, and Jewish history in Jerusalem.