J Street’s hypocrisy must be exposed (Jeremy Ben Ami and J Street)
J Street’s ‘Big Tent’ is open only to one side – the anti-Israel and BDS-supporting hard left of its own position; pro-Israel centrists are censored.
Jeremy Ben Ami and J Street
J Street, the American organization that calls itself pro-Israel and pro peace but that always seems to be taking positions that are anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian, is asking America’s Jewish leadership to have a big tent and to open its
doors to J Street. While I generally support that position, it is
imperative that J Street’s hypocrisy be exposed. J Street insists that
all major pro-Israel organizations be open to speakers who favor opposing views—such
as supporters of the BDS movements, supporters of the single secular
binational state approach, and those who oppose Palestinian recognition
of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
In the abstract, this open tent policy seems commendable. We should be committed to the open marketplace of ideas in which views prevail on their merits not on the basis of exclusion.
Now let’s see how J Street itself fares with regard to an open tent
policy. It has categorically refused to allow speakers like me, who
oppose J Street’s policies on Iran and other security matters, to speak
to its members at its conventions. I have repeatedly and persistently
sought an opportunity to present my perspective—which is shared by many
American supporters of Israel—at the J Street convention, or at otherevents officially
sponsored by J Street. When J Street invites BDS supporters and those
oppose Israel’s right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people
to speak at itsevents, it claims that it does not necessarily support
these positions, but it believes in encouraging its members to hear views that are different from its official positions. That is total nonsense. J Street only wants people to hear views to the anti-Israel hard left of its position. It categorically refuses to allow its members to hear views that are more centrist and more pro-Israel, such as my own.
…
And
there is a good reason why they have placed this cone of silence over
its critics. J Street survives, and even expands, largely as the result
of speaking out of two sides of its mouth. It seeks to attract centrist
members by advocating the two-state solution, an aggressive stance
towards peace negotiations and criticisms of Israel’s settlementpolicies. These are positions I fully support, and if they were J Street’s only positions, I would have joined that organization many years ago. But in an effort to expand leftward, particularly hard leftward, it has taken positions that undercut Israel’s security and that
virtually no Israeli center-leftists support. It placed its imprimatur
behind the despicable and mendacious Goldstone Report by bringing
Richard Goldstone to Capitol Hill and introducing him to members of
Congress. In doing so it undercuts the efforts of the Obama
Administration, which was supportive of Israel’s self-defense efforts in
Gaza and not supportive of the Goldstone Report.
…
J
Street has also spoken out of both sides of its mouth on the issue of
whether the Palestinian leadership should recognize Israel as the
nation-state of the Jewish people. While first appearing to oppose such
recognition, it now seems to be saying that this issue should be left to
final stage negotiations, but it leaves open the possibility that it will continue to oppose such recognition if and when such negotiations are reached.
Moreover, J Street has accepted funding from
sources—such as George Soros—who are openly anti-Israel, and have kept
this fact secret so as not to alienate its centrist supporters.
It is easy to understand therefore why J Street doesn’t want me, or others who holdpositions like
mine, to enter into its tent. It does not want its own members to be
confronted with the reality of J Street’s double talk. If I speak at its
convention, I will be speaking at the same time to those centrists it
seeks to attract and to those hard leftists it wants within its tent.
Both sides will be shocked by J Street’s duplicity in telling each what
they want to hear.
So
here is my challenge: at the next J Street convention, show the film
The J Street Challenge: The Seductive Allure of Peace in Our Time to all
of its members, invite me to speak to them, allow me to distribute its
conflicting position papers and positionsand let the marketplace of ideas remain open to its members. Only when J Street opens up its tent to views critical of its own should it be demanding that pro-Israel groups open its tent to them.
Now look at Ben-Ami’s “response” where he doesn’t respond at all:
…Instead
of organizing to meet this existential threat, some on the far right of
the American Jewish community are focusing their effort and their fire
in a different direction – on members of their own community. In
particular, there is a new well-funded and energetic campaign to defame
and delegitimize J Street, centered on an hour-long attack-umentary
called the “J Street Challenge.”
Sadly even a couple of mainstream, established Jewish organizations and
figures are associating themselves with it – contrary to our
community’s firm commitment to civil debate on issues of legitimate
disagreement.
Those who’ve made the film and are hawking it are, however, missing the real challenges that J Street is posing to the Jewish community. Here are a few of them:
•
With the world losing patience with Israel’s policy toward the
Palestinians, will we rally to urge the national homeland of our people
to change course before it loses its democracy or its Jewish character?
•
As the BDS Movement against Israel gains traction, will we recognize
that the best way to defeat it isn’t spending our energy on preventing
its supporters from being heard, but on ending the conflict in two
states for two peoples?
•
If you recognize the existential necessity of a two-state solution for
Israel to survive as a Jewish and democratic homeland, isn’t it time to
acknowledge the price that has to be paid to achieve it? How can we say
we support a two-state solution but oppose establishing borders based on
the pre-67 lines with swaps? How can we say we support two states and
oppose a Palestinian capital in the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem?
•
Is it appropriate to call those who criticize Israeli government policy
anti-Israel or anti-Semitic? Plenty of Israelis including security
chiefs, former Prime Ministers and Members of the Knesset are critical
of present policy, and they’re certainly not anti-Israel. In fact, using
the anti-Semitism label to describe criticism of Israeli policy demeans
the horror of real anti-Semitism.
• Is it right or smart to limit the right to speak in Jewish communal spaces to those with whom you agree? The more we limit admission to Jewish communal spaces by imposing ideological litmus tests regarding Israel, the smaller our Jewish community will be.
•
Are we, as a people, treating the Palestinian people the way we
ourselves want to be treated? Are we living up to the moral standards of
our people and have we learned the lessons of our own oppression
through the centuries and across the globe?
•
Can we finally stop ignoring what is happening beyond the Green Line?
The day-to-day maintenance of a 47-year occupation of another people
runs counter to the interests and values of Israel and the Jewish
people. It places all the wonder and accomplishment of the state of
Israel at risk. It is time for the occupation to end.
We urge those attacking us to spend a little less time leveling baseless accusations against a now-established Jewish organization and a little more time addressing these fundamental challenges facing the Israel we love.
…
(Jeremy
Ben Ami and J Street) In Jewish communal venues here and across the
globe, let’s call an end to the attack videos and mudslinging and let’s
start discussing the significant challenges that really threaten not
just Israel but the heart and the soul of the Jewish people.
posted by Rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg
No comments:
Post a Comment