The False Hope of J Street and the Gentile Problem : AZ IMC

Philip Giraldi on Antiwar.com produced an excellent article on J Street, the new “pro-Israel, pro-peace” alternative to AIPAC, which last month held its inaugural conference in Washington. [ "My Problem with J Street"]

The organization’s name, J Street, a lettered street which does not exist in Washington, DC, is presumably an effort to identify with K Street, which is considered the central location for lobbying firms in Washington, with the “J” presumably standing for “Jewish,” since “J” is not the only unused letter for Washington street names.

J Street has been excoriated by the neocons and other hardline Zionist rightists as being anti-Israel, while it has been hailed as a great hope for the future by many proponents of a more balanced, less pro-Israel, American policy in the Middle East. Giraldi, however, stands virtually alone in seeing things in a much different light. To him, J Street is “just another Israel advocacy group with a slightly more progressive and politically correct and therefore acceptable message.” In short, with its moderate, pro-peace image, J Street can more effectively promote the policies of the Israeli government, to the detriment of the Palestinians and the United States.

Giraldi shows that, on crucial issues, there is not much substantive difference between J Street and AIPAC. He writes that the “the two pro-Israel lobbies clearly have the same overriding objective: to preserve unlimited American support for the state of Israel, not advancing the interests of the United States.” Specifically, J Street holds that the U.S. “should continue indefinitely in its role as Israel’s patron, security guarantor, and financial supporter.” The new lobby rules out the idea that American aid to Israel should be conditioned on Israeli concessions for peace.

Giraldi points out that, like AIPAC, J Street accepts the exclusivist Jewish state instead of “equal rights for all citizens.” J Street’s executive director, Jeremy Ben-Ami. castigates Mearsheimer and Walt’s portrayal of a powerful Israel Lobby as anti-Semitic. Ben-Ami also rejects the UN-sponsored Goldstone report’s critical depiction of Israeli war crimes in the December 2008—January 2009 incursion into Gaza, which was endorsed by the overwhelming majority of countries of the world. Moreover, J Street differs but slightly with AIPAC on Iran. If diplomacy and UN Sanctions fail to bring concessions, J Street advocates the strong sanctions advocated in the U.S. House of Representatives bill on Iran, which, Giraldi points out, “is basically an act of war requiring intervention by the US Navy and would devastate the Iranian economy.”

There is also one other J Street position that completely undermines its image as pro-peace. J Street specifically talks about incorporating the major West Bank Jewish settlements into Israel, instead of having Israel return to its 1967 borders. In short, there is no evidence that J Street is willing to support any type of Palestinian “state” that differs in any significant way from what Israeli governments have proposed in the past, which essentially is a non-viable state that is, understandably, completely unacceptable to the Palestinian people.

So what is J Street’s likely impact? As suggested earlier, it provides a liberal façade for Israeli “peace” terms, thus garnering greater support from progressives in the United States and around the world. The fact that the Zionist Right would likely be yelling appeasement and condemning J Street as a bunch of “self-haters” would do even more to bolster any Israeli peace proposal endorsed by J Street. Conversely, any Palestinian rejection of such “liberal” peace terms supported by J Street would provide greater justification for their demonization and harsh treatment by the Israeli government.

Street also creates a shield to protect Israel and all of its supporters, including hard-line rightists, from truthful criticism. Because of its public image as fair-minded, J Street can implicitly set strict limits for allowable criticism of Israel and its American supporters. Any criticism going beyond this, no matter how accurate--which would include the charge that the Israel Lobby dominates American Middle East policy--would be considered unacceptable, and undoubtedly J Streeters would play a key role as gatekeepers. Prominent J Streeter Michelle Goldberg recently attacked my book, “The Transparent Cabal,” as an example of “subtle” anti-Semitism. Like Ben-Ami, she also expressed a negative view of Mearsheimer and Walt.

It must be pointed out that George Washington in his famous “Farewell Address” realized that there were Americans who were “passionately attached” to foreign countries, and that at some future date their agenda would be, to some extent, implemented, though he hoped that his warning could serve to mitigate the harm that this would do to the United States.

In short, there is nothing odd in American Jews’ having what Washington termed a “passionate attachment” to the Jewish state. What is odd, however, is that so many educated gentiles in the United States would look to Jews to correct US foreign policy where Israeli interests are involved. There seems to be an implicit assumption by many American gentiles that, because of historical discrimination against Jews, only Jews have the moral right to criticize the policies of the state of Israel and, even among those in whom this assumption does not prevail, there exists an overriding fear that for gentiles to criticize the state of Israel would bring on the lethal charge of anti-Semitism.

So in large measure, the problem is not with American Jews but with American gentiles. Undoubtedly, some American Jews have made telling criticisms of the policies of Israel, but American gentiles cannot afford to simply wait for the right Jews to rectify America’s one-sided policy in the Middle East. Matters in that region are so serious and so fraught with incalculable peril for the United States and for the world as to make this passivity unconscionable. Rather, American gentiles themselves must dare to step forward and speak out. The purpose is not to condemn Israel or its American supporters, but simply to tell the truth. The peace and security of the United States and the world depend on it.

Well the Hampshire BDS conference begins tonight (be still my heart). Yet even as the divestment "juggernaut" keeps careening between defeat and hoax, the only thing that seems to be gaining momentum is the backlash against what will be discussed during the boycotter's upcoming Sabbath celebration.

Academic boycott seems to particularly strike a nerve here in the US with organizations like the 1.4 million-member American Federation of Teachers not only rejecting the notion in the US, but condemning fellow unions in other countries for even considering such an assault on academic freedom.

Think about San Francisco State College for a minute. Here is a school in which administration indifference has allowed Israel-hatred to reach such a fevered pitch that mobs hurling death threats against pro-Israel demonstrators are treated as free-speech practitioners. Yet even here, the President of SF State has seen fit to condemn BDS as "deeply wrong - and deeply dangerous." On the academic boycott in particular, she says: "An academic boycott is a wrongheaded tactic that diminishes any institution that would pursue it," Corrigan wrote. "It is antithetical to this University's values of inclusion and mutual respect ... An academic boycott is anathema to such civil discourse."

Disgust with BDS has even reached the corridors of J Street, a lobbying organization that has drawn considerable controversy for the distance between its self-proclaimed identity as "pro-Israel" and its political stances that many claim are at odds with the security needs of the Jewish state. J Street has protested Israel's actions in Gaza. It has lobbied against sanctions being placed on Iran. It has condemned the US Congress for its rejection of the Goldstone Report. Yet even J Street condemned BDS generally, and the upcoming Hampshire conference specifically.

Given the difficulty of characterizing SF State and J Street as "right-wing Zealots," these latest setbacks are likely to be ignored as the Hampshire SJPians begin their "March to Victory" weekend celebrations and poetry readings. But it is intriguing to think about why BDS is receiving such widespread rejection on the furthest edges of both ends of the political spectrum.

One possible explanation is that people are starting to realize that actual (vs. fantasy) divestment and boycott comes at a cost. Particularly in the case of academic boycott, a boycotting school would have to formally place itself outside of the consensus regarding the free exchange of ideas. Now it's one thing to stand back while a bunch of Jewish students get attacked by a mob on your campus, but to have your face plastered in the newspapers as supporting an end to academic dialog for political reasons is too much even for the leadership of San Francisco State.

There also seems to be a trend whereby controversial organizations (like J Street) use their condemnation of BDS to prove their pro-Israel bone fides. To a certain extent, this is meant to insulate them from criticism for their other activities, but it does say something that BDS is understood as being so loathsome that condemnation of boycott would be considered a safe choice for a political fig leaf.

The last possibility is reflected in a boldfaced line in the J Street condemnation against BDS: "we're all going to get burned unless we speak out now." Ever aware of the latest political barometric pressure readings, J Street understands that BDS is a big, fat loser, and rather than go down with the ship supporting a strategy that is not only loathsome but so bereft of victories that it has to invent some, they've taken the safe route of placing divestment beyond the pale.

this abbreviated statement:
-"but to have your face plastered in the newspapers as supporting an end to academic dialog for political reasons is too much "-

now what's all this echoing noise about prof. Robbinson at UCSB?
http://arizona.indymedia.org/news/2009/11/75340_comment.php#75356
and the raw nerves of the zionist lobby?
you simply cannot have it always your way, despite political and financial pressures to appease the recipients of AIPAC and *other funding sources.
If the dual citizenship of Israeli influence wasn't so pervasive and positioned so powerfully in the American government, this wouldn't even be an issue.
But two wars for non American interests show this is a great and malevolent issue, that is killing this nation; my nation.

And just what country is the documented terrorist sympathizer speaking of?

it not yours..
by I'm not an Israeli spook Saturday, Nov. 21, 2009 at 5:04 PM

And unlike you, I don't live in a stew of psychopathic hate.
I call the USA my home, not Israel, like you do.