Where exactly — or even approximately — is “the center”? Is the center necessarily “the mainstream?” What if, instead of the conventional normal distribution — two dwindling slopes trailing off from a large hump between them — the distribution looks more like a “U,” with most people at either end and the middle nearly empty? Or an “L,” with most people off to one side?
There are endless possibilities. I write on the morrow of the rousing opening session of the much-publicized J Street conference, in Washington, D.C. The folks of J Street insist that they in fact represent the American Jewish mainstream, even though there has been substantial pushback in the weeks before the conference. They cite polling data that show most Americans Jews support a two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict and that most support President Obama’s active involvement in moving the peace process along — J Street’s signature positions.
But Israel’s ambassador to the United States snubbed the conference, to which he’d been invited, an invitation he’d surely have accepted if the Israeli government thought J Street were part of the American Jewish mainstream. Both Bill Kristol’s Weekly Standard and Marty Peretz’s New Republic attacked J Street, and the key organizations of the American Jewish community were thunderously silent in their response both to its emergence and to its conference.
In its planning, J Street faced a more serious problem than the frost of others. J Street is only 18 months old, and in the course of those months it has been dazzling in its ability to win press coverage. Much of the time, that coverage was nearly breathless, as if until J Street there’d been no outlet for those American Jews who were troubled by the policies of Israel’s government. But of course there had been. Americans for Peace Now, the Israel Policy Forum, Brit Tzedek v’Shalom, among a respectable number of others, had been fighting the good fight for years. Yet suddenly, J Street managed not only to put itself on the map; it became the map.
It brought four new things to the table: major-league funding, a political action committee legally entitled to make campaign contributions, an unprecedented skill at public relations — and Jeremy Ben-Ami, whose brainchild and workchild J Street was and is. Nor is who showed up at the table soon after J Street’s birth been merely incidental to its success. The election of Barak Obama meant that J Street was aligned with the policies of the president of the United States. Thus to argue that J Street is somehow subversive is to take vicarious aim at Obama himself. Some people are untroubled by that; most, so the polls suggest, believe that the president’s approach, so different from that of his predecessor, deserves support.
Are the center-left and the left the new mainstream? It’s far too early to make that judgment, and there will surely be considerable sniping by the traditional mainstream to marginalize J Street. For now, what can be said with confidence is that J Street has already avoided the classic pitfall of the left; it has avoided the exaggeration of small differences. J Street, with its financial clout and its PR savvy, might easily have taken a “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” approach, surrounding itself with a deep ideological moat. Instead, it laid down a broad welcome mat, and 20 organizations came into its tent. Among these, at least two were partners in planning, the others more or less active participants. Sharing credit? Not turf-conscious? Though still very much in its infancy, this bold move to inclusiveness attests to J Street’s precocious maturity.
In a way, the entire phenomenon is at the same time somewhat insane. A two-state solution? That has been the American position for years; it is, however reluctantly, the position of the Israeli government; it is the position of a substantial majority of American Jews. So what in the world is the big deal? More: It is late in the day. Friends just back from extended visits to the region, including time spent with Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, tell me that the talk there is all about a one-state solution. If that, then night. So how can it be that the emergence of a new organization, committed to open debate and discussion, firmly and fervently within the Zionist consensus on the overriding issue of our time, home to a vigorous understanding that for Israel to live in peace and security as a democratic Jewish state it must embrace a viable Palestinians state next door, that all that has the feel of revolution?
There were very many young people at the J Street conference. By his studied absence, the Israeli ambassador to the United States sent a message to these young people: You are not welcome in the camp. You had the audacity to criticize our war in Gaza; you oppose the immediate imposition of sanctions on Iran; you do not take your cues from our preferences and decisions. No matter, then, that so many find you a breath of fresh air in an awfully stale room, no matter that you seem to care, to really care, for Israel’s safety and welfare. Go away.
That message is, in a word, intolerable. In two words, it is both stupid and intolerable.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
To post a comment, click to login:
Copyright © 2012, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
What is all the fuss about, well the Israeli position is one that has been reluctantly foisted upon "them" by various forces but one that in recent years has been shown to be misguided and one where they are trying to figure a way out of. The problems of recent years have been the second intifada, the rise and war with Hezbullah, and the rise and war with Hamas and this after the good will gesture of two disengagements and now the dangers of a nuclearized Syria, Iran and recently Jordan.
The J Street position is one that pulls to the left and to to the Arabist position, it treats UN Resolutions as unbinding, it views the Arabs' position including the position not to settle refugees and their continued indignanty compassionately and fault the Israelis for not being responsible when they have fought many wars and lost 11,000 soldiers and have wounded soldiers four to five times that number and that does not include the hundereds of civilians who have died in terror attacks.
To understand a little of Israeli life, I lived for a short time on Kibbutz Givat Haim Meuchad and for Memorial Day the memorial table covered with photos of their familys' dead stretched the length and depth a good part of the perimeter of the largest dining hall in Israel kibbutzim.
Is it possible that the Ambassador's message to J Street and it's posse' was that in case US turns it back on Israel altogether, Israel might start relying solely on it's own resources and people, even if it means the worst? Also, there is no way J Street and any organization founded and supported by G.Soros and the likes can represent Jewish mainstream. At least I refuse to believe that the American Jews have totally lost their common sense to follow someone of questionable morals. I am sure that the true facts behind his well-publisized 'teen survival' story were quite dubious and his business success just proved that Soros possessed and perfected the same 'qualities' that helped him to 'survive' the war years. And now anti-Israel J Street. Can this man stoop any lower?
Mr Fein - You speak of a new organization "firmly and fervently within the Zionist consensus on the overriding issue of our time". I understand that your meaning of "Zionist consensus" is based on the American Jewish "newspeak" dictionary (i.e. support of Israel - not actual aliyah). I am assuming that the overriding issue of our time is the "two-state solution". Well, there are other very important and urgent issues of our Jewish world, but I'd like to say a few words about the "two-state solution". It is the interest of the State of Israel to arrive at an end of conflict through the "two-state solution". The mainstream of Jewish society in Israel has adopted this concept. That is the very reason that it will be impossible to finalize such a solution! The Palestinian national identity is expressed primarily in its opposition to Zionism (there is hardly any other issue on their national agenda). It is very unlikely that the Palestinians will agree to an arrangement that is perceived as being in our long-term interest. They might agree to the founding of a Palestinian state along side of Israel, but such an agreement in their eyes will not be "the end of conflict". In short, they might agree to a two-state ARRANGEMENT - but not a two state SOLUTION.
What I find very strange in your articles throughout the years is the overall message that the solution to the conflict is in our hands. It's as if the other side has no input. This week's article is different: "Friends just back from extended visits to the region, including time spent with Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, tell me that the talk there is all about a one-state solution. If that, then night." As we say in Israel - "boqer tov, eliyahu", welcome to reality. There is another side to the conflict, and it sees things so differently. It would be an important service to the reading public to add an analysis as to why "the talk there is all about a one-state solution". There are a number of interpretations: (1) The two-state solution is perceived as a Palestinian acceptance of the permanancy of Israel (which in their eyes is an acceptance of an "injustice"). (2) A one-state solution will necessitate the disestablishment of Israel in order to found the new state in its stead, and that is perceived as a victory over Zionism. (3) If the Jews now want a particular solution, then the Palestinians want "another solution"; i.e. it is a declaration of intent to continue the conflict, not to solve it.
The conflict is not going to end any time soon. We are not going to agree to the disestablishment of Israel, and the Palestinians are not going to agree to "end of conflict" even after achieving statehood. It is not a conflict over arrangements, or borders, or refugees, or fences or settlements. It is a conflict over the legitimacy of the Hebrew-speaking Yishuv in the Land of Israel. (That also means that even a one-state "solution" will not mean an end of conflict, because the Yishuv will continue to exist in the new state - and it will face continuing animosity, but without its own army to protect it).
There are other issues that should be on the American Jewish agenda. The focus on Israel is a big compliment to us, of course, placing the rise of Jewish statehood as the central issue of the Jewish world. The disintegration of Jewish life in the Diaspora in the post-Holocaust era is also an issue of central historic importance. It's such a pity that Mr Fein is not busy (at least once in a long while) sounding the alarm that "something is going very wrong in American Jewry".
The venom directed at Leonard Fein's thoughtful article illustrates why AIPAC is turning off so many of us. The style of so many AIPAC proponents includes presumption, arrogance, abusive barrages, ad hominem attacks on critics, and vile lies. If J Street accomplished nothing but creating a decent space for discourse it would be a profoundly civilizing accomplishment.
I can only hope that Leonard Fein will continue to contribute his insightful writing for many more years on top of his many years, while someone sits the rest of you down and finally teaches you some manners.
P.S. Before I got to the comments section I was going to criticize Mr. Fein's arguments. Alas, we first have to deal with bullies like you. Keep it up and many more folks will be with J Street. If you want to stop J Street's momentum, overhaul AIPAC.