J Street Runs in the Wrong Direction
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
I was pretty positive about J Street when it launched 18 months ago. And of course, on balance I prefer J Street to the bellicose AIPAC. The former does not advocate that America launch wars (Iraq) that are not in its interest to fight.
But J Street’s premises may be flawed. This “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobby exists for two reasons. 1) To give American Jews, most of them progressive, a sane alternative to AIPAC. 2) To convince Americans, and American policymakers that a two-state settlement is both desirable and–contrary to other pro-Israel groups–that it is achievable if only America really tries.
In a country that happens to control the largest, best equipped, and most hubristic military apparatus in the world, J Street finds itself banging on the table, shouting, “Yes, we absolutely agree with AIPAC that it is vital for America to protect Israel’s interests. And yes, we agree that many Arab state actors are monsters.” Then, in an embarrassed whisper, it adds “We think there are diplomatic solutions that America should begin imposing.” Finally, it concedes in footnotes to be released later, that “No, we don’t think America should really threaten to withhold its money or technology from Israel to accomplish any of this.”
I’m sorry. This won’t work.
The fix for Washington’s obsession with protecting Israel is not a series of panel discussions on what is really in Israel’s best interest. Instead, our political class should focus on what is in America’s best interest.
J Street’s problem is its internationalism. In J Street’s view, America is supposed to throw its weight around the region toward a two-state solution. Its supposed to stand up to the Israeli right. Once America initiates this process, guides it, subsidizes it, and perhaps defends it – then America will reap some rewards. In other words, J Street absolves Israel and Israelis from responsibility for their own peace process.
My own view is that radical Palestinians may be just as aggrieved at an American-imposed peace process, as by an American-enabled Israeli occupation. If by some miracle the dust ever settles in the Middle East, it would be better for us if our fingerprints were not discovered there.
Filed under: Foreign policy, Politics, World
The creation of Israel was the greatest blunder of the 20th century. Time for a one-state solution that takes a sane look at the demographics of Jews and Arabs. If the Jews don’t like it, they can move to Alaska.
Israel needs to learn to get along with its neighbors. The Israeli government needs to learn that the definition of peace is not the same as the definition of the word piece, since, they just can’t stop helping themselves to another piece of Palestine. The maps from the last 100 years tell the story.
Cut the aid to Israel and watch how fast they make peace.
Our hard-earned taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be funding colonialism and apartheid, particularly in hard times such as these. That money would be better spent at home.
Democracy=one man, one vote. Democracy ethnic or religious supremacism.
Michael Brendan Dougherty wrote:
“My own view is that radical Palestinians may be just as aggrieved at an American-imposed peace process, as by an American-enabled Israeli occupation. If by some miracle the dust ever settles in the Middle East, it would be better for us if our fingerprints were not discovered there.”
Except that it won’t just be the “radical” Palestinians who will be “just as aggrieved.”
It seems to me that our history in the Mideast resembles nothing so much as one gigantic piece of Greek baklava, with layer upon layer of sham, each covered with honeyed words, rising ever higher and higher, with each one being necessarily laid so as to cover the last.
We pretend we object to the Israeli occupation and settlement of the West Bank and East Jerusalem even though of course we subsidize the hell out of it, and we then pretend that this has nothing to with 9/11 and bin Laden and going into Iraq and Afghanistan and destabilizing Pakistan and getting crosswise with Iran.
Then, so as to try to extricate ourselves from the ever increasing costs such as this we pretend to be a fair broker in the I/P conflict—thereby short-circuiting any other international pressure to bring that conflict to an end—but because we are not a fair broker we do things such as reject the democratically-elected Hamas as a Palestinian leader and work ever harder to find and bribe and prop up some other Palestinian “leader” who will sign the only kind of deal Israel will accept.
Except of course … the only kind of “peace” that can be reached with such a corrupt and supine “leader” will be one that is a sham too because it will be so utterly unrepresentative of the wishes of the Palestinian people.
And thus, with infinite justice, we arrive at the final crowning glory of it all: So as to attempt to resolve the ever-increasing problems that have been caused by our involvement in a sham and that have necessitated our embrace of ever more shams, the only way to extricate ourselves is to try yet another sham.
Or, as Kipling put it, there we go again, once more trying to hustle the (Mid) East.
All points to be made are spectacularly mooted by the presence of Netanyahu. Until here is gone from the Israeli political stage–permanently–we are, all of us, in for more of the same.
I think you suppose we will get to the moon by shooting for the stars, while J Street is trying to build a ladder. It’s immediate – and obtainable – goal is your point #2: provide a means for Jews who support a two-state solution to influence policy. (BTW, doesn’t AIPAC support the status quo more than a two-state solution?)
Random points:
Where does J Street even imply that many Arab state actors are monsters?
Whispers and footnotes are currently all J Street can accomplish. But it is building for much more.
J Street claims what is really in Israel’s best interest is also in America’s best interest.
“J Street absolves Israel and Israelis from responsibility for their own peace process.” That is just silly – somehow Israel isn’t a party to any agreements? Or that it can ignore right of return?
“My own view is that radical Palestinians may be just as aggrieved at an American-imposed peace process, as by an American-enabled Israeli occupation.” That is crazy.
Having spoken with J Street’s leaders and theorists upon launch, I do believe they obsolve Isreal of responsibility for their own peace process. They imply quite frankly, that Isreal will not make an honest settlement with the Palestinians until America forces them to do so.
Truly radical Palestinians will still want to destroy Israel even after the occupied territories are vacated. Peace treaties are usually followed by civil war. See Ireland.
How does applying pressure to Israel absolve it of responsibility?
You didn’t say Palestinian radicals would still want to attack Israel, you said they may be just as aggrieved as they currently are. The peace treaty, even if “imposed” by America, will almost certainly include an end to:
the Gaza blockade,
checkpoints within the Palestinian state,
targeted killings of Palestinian leaders,
illegal outposts, and
WB settlement expansion.
While releasing current Palestinian prisoners and creating a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, then how could they possibly be just as aggrieved?
Norwegian Shooter wrote:
“While releasing current Palestinian prisoners and creating a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, then how could they possibly be just as aggrieved?”
Because they would perceive that some co-opted, corrupted and/or simply supine other Palestinian(s) had told the world that such a settlement was okay and had thereby sold out their cause. (Even with such a settlement being of the sort you note, except without the real removal of all “illegal outposts” because *all* the “outposts” and settlements are illegal and there’s no way Israel is going to evacuate any of those giant settlements they’ve got going.)
So of *course* “radicals” would feel “more aggrieved” given that they would feel that their cause had been betrayed.
Indeed as I said before it seems to me that the kind of settlement that Abbas was moving towards with Olmert before Bibi came in was one that not only wouldn’t be accepted by Palestinian “radicals” but by rank and file P’s as well and thus wouldn’t hold. Nevertheless, just as we saw this week while the U.S. and Israel keep substantively cutting the legs off weaklings like Abbas (muscling them to forget the Goldstone Report, going back on the demand on Israel to stop settlement expansion), they then desperately keep propping ‘em up because such weaklings are the only kind who would sign the kind of “peace deal” that the Israelis will agree to.
Again Shooter, I can appreciate what seems your point that J-Street isn’t being negative/harmful at *this* point with the mere temporary sub-issues that are hot now, and certainly are not being negative/harmful relative to what, say AIPAC is pushing. But to the extent that you seem to be edging over into saying J-Street is really either pushing something that’s good for the U.S. or something that is really going to fairly end the I/P conflict that’s where I respectfully think you are in error.
In short, just as the head of J-Street Ben-Ami has just this week said that J-Street’s official position is that in no way should the U.S. ever withdraw any military or other support from Israel, that’s not in the U.S.’s interest in my view in any way, shape or form. And of course he’s also talked about the necessity of the U.S. continuing to carry water for Israel vis a vis the Iranians.
And then, in terms of real peace between the arabs and the jews in the Israel/Palestinian area, Ben-Ami also revealed in the same interview exactly what J-Street thinks of arabs, saying that he thinks a one-state solution where jews would—shudder—have to live shoulder-to-shoulder in the same state with arabs as—and I quote—a “nightmare.”
So much, in my opinion, for J-Street either being concerned with U.S. interests or for supporting anything coming within light-year distance of that which is going to be fair to the Palestinians and that would mean a real, durable peace.
To me then the only real potential J-Street has is one that would not only be unintentional from it’s point of view, but one that Ben-Ami has clearly said he is afraid of: That is, opening the way for other Americans—including gentiles most specifically as per Ben-Ami—to start being able to say and push for things that AIPAC-type folks have heretofore succeeded in labeling “anti-semitic.”
You can’t hardly be praising an organization then for possibly being helpful in bringing about a certain result when that organization is itself simply *horrified* at the idea of that result.
Cheers,
TomB, good stuff.
What peace treaty would radical Palestinians accept? Actually that’s rhetorical because I believe we both think that whatever that is, it wouldn’t be acceptable to Israelis, therefore it won’t happen. Where we differ, I think, is that I ignore what radical Palestinians would accept as a peace treaty. What I am driving at is that it simply isn’t relevant if radical Palestinians are aggrieved or not after a peace treaty. The only question is can they undermine any treaty or not. I think not.
I did not know of Ben Ami’s statements of rejecting withdrawal of military or financial support for the Israeli government. But I know J Street does not accept the “no daylight” position of AIPAC, so there must be something that J Street thinks America could pressure Israel with.
Doesn’t support for a two-state solution necessarily mean support for a fair I/P agreement? How else could both parties sign off on such a deal?
Again, I’ll look for the full quotes from Ben Ami et al. But I feel confident that on “nightmare” he did not mean just simply living side-by-side. There are Arabs living in Israel now – he’s not Lieberman. But the nightmare of one state is when the demographic bomb goes off. Certainly violence will occur through that process, from both sides. I’m also guessing that nightmare is used to contrast one-state vs. two-states.
I’ll read the quotes before responding to the last two paragraphs.
Norwegian Shooter:
Firstly I should hasten to add that you are right that, to his credit, Ben-Ami did not seem to make his “nightmare” statement out of any classically racist impulse. Of course even so if anyone else in any similar (non-classically racist) way would say that they would consider it a “nightmare” to live in a state that was not dominated by non-jews they would be written out of the human conversation. But it’s still not fair to allow people to think another is being racist when they aren’t so that ought to be made clear.
Otherwise I’m a little unsure of the precise nature of any disagreement we may have. All I would say then is that I think it is not just a huge possibility but indeed perhaps even a veritable certainty that if the PA were to accept the only kind of deal that Israel seems willing to sign right now (or indeed in the foreseeable future), that agreement would simply not hold. Not only would Palestinian “radicals” reject it so too would the great bulk of the Palestinian people I think.
This then is why I think what the U.S. is doing is a sham via endlessly propping up folks like Abbas and shutting out Hamas, and then pretending that if we can just get the former to sign some deal milk and honey will flow in the mid-East streets. Instead I think what will be flowing is just more blood.
Yes, it’s a discussion – not everything on the internet needs to be fight to the death. Getting back to J Street, here’s a more positive quote from Ben-Ami in Goldberg’s interview:
“I think that the notion is that there should be a homeland that is a Jewish homeland. That is the founding principle of J Street. The question is, how do we preserve it? That’s where we seem to be getting attacked. Our view is that in order to preserve this, there just simply has to be an independent state for the Palestinians next door, and that’s where they will live. And we live in Israel and we live there and there’s always going to be a minority in Israel that is not Jewish and we need to treat them like equal citizens and value their participation in our democracy, but it is a Jewish home.”
I take up this issue at TAC not because I think J Street is the best organization in the world, but that it is a shame for paleo-cons to write off J Street, especially at this early date. There expressed goal is to open debate in America on I/P issues, and they certainly have done that. Paleos should be at least grateful for this.
Norwegian,
Thank you for drawing this debate out further. I was certainly welcoming of J Street when I wrote about it upon its launch. And if they achieve some of their goals, such as orienting pro-Israel activism into a pro-leace direction, I will be very pleased.
My fear is that J Street takes as a given the same premise as AIPAC: that Israeli and American interests are perfectly aligned. I think this is not the case, and the source of some serious problems for our security and other national interests.
J Street is necessary. But its approach to correcting American policy is not sufficient.
I don’t claim to speak for all of TAC. Scott McConnell takes a much more positive view of J Street’s potential than I do. We have room for dissent on this ship.
UN194 FIRST then Abu_baker Qur’anic State for all
Thanks for replying. The aligned interest issue is actually pretty subtle, but important. First, J Street is not pro-Israel in the AIPAC definition. In the NYT Mag piece from September:
J Street does not accept the “public harmony” rule any more than Obama does. In a conversation a month before the White House session, Ben-Ami explained to me: “We’re trying to redefine what it means to be pro-Israel. You don’t have to be noncritical. You don’t have to adopt the party line. It’s not, ‘Israel, right or wrong.’ ”
end quote. The “public harmony” refers to the “no daylight” position that Obama said has not worked in the past 8 years.
J Street is pro-peace and thinks a two-state solution is the only way to achieve peace. I think we all agree that a peace treaty that creates a Palestinian state is in America’s interest. What J Street wants to create is space for American Jews to say a peace treaty that creates a Palestinian state is in Israel’s interest, too. They are claiming that Likudniks and AIPAC are pursuing policies that are bad for Israel. So, through negating pressure from the AIPAC crowd on American politicians, US policy can actually influence Israel to end the occupation and sign a peace treaty. J Street sees this as a win-win for America and Israel, which is what makes their efforts so promising.
Finally, yes, J Street and AIPAC share some positions on small bore stuff, but remember J Street condemned Operation Cast Lead from the start.
The myth of a two-state solution must also be exposed. The world cannot afford to have “Jewish” states or “Muslim” states or “Christian” states. Religious states are inherently anti-democratic and militaristic, as Issrael’s experiment demonstrates. Furthermore, Israel is hiding behind the “Jewish” state in order to brand its critics as anti-semites whenever they criticize that state’s policies. If Israel were simply a sectarian state, any criticism of it would be simply that–criticism of a state. Just as we criticize China, the US, or Russia, we should also be able to criticize Israel without the anti-semitism smoke screen. Israel gets a lot of mileage out of its Jewish statehood, and then uses it to perpetuate war crimes around the world. A one-state solution, with all religions equally respected and all ethnicities having equal rights, will be the only hope for peace and justice in the Middle East.
Of course, one problem is that our fingerprints are already so all over the Middle East that even Inspector Clouseau would have no problem in finding them.
Remember, most of the time that Israel launches a missile, the people at the receiving end are going to find bomb fragments that are written in English and say “Made in the USA” all over them. They usually find these in the midst of a scene we’ve all seen, which is relatives, loved ones, and neighbors all digging frantically into the rubble of a bombed building while desperately searching for survivors.
That’s not to say that both sides don’t do evil. They do. But, this notion that we can back off today and not even leave behind a fingerprint is a bit farfetched.
And the big point is this. America can not afford to continue sending aid to Israel and Egypt.
I used to think that $500 billion deficits were excessive. This year we are looking at a $2 trillion deficit. And with the Main Street economy still crashing, that doesn’t look like its getting any better any time soon. Plus, what money we have we need to be spending helping our own economy and our own people. For instance, right now would seem to be a great time to be repairing and rebuilding our crumbling civic infrastructure.
America needs to learn what most American families have already learned. We need to look at where we are spending money, evaluate this, and at times decide that we simply can not afford some things any more.
America gives something like $5 to $10 billion to Israel every year, especially when you look at guaranteed loans that are forgiven. Another $3 billion or so goes to Egypt. These are by far the two largest items of ‘foreign aid’ that we give out every year.
America can’t afford this right now. Period. We need the money here at home. We need to pile up as little debt as possible as we get through this crisis.
America needs to find a nice way to say ‘Thanks Middle East, its been great, but from now on, you are on your own.’
“Nevertheless, just as we saw this week while the U.S. and Israel keep substantively cutting the legs off weaklings like Abbas …”
I agree with most of what Michael Brendan Dougherty writes, however, I think that a more appropriate adjective for Abbas would be collaborationist.