Comments on: J Street third annual conference marks shift to the right http://972mag.com/j-street-3rd-annual-conference-marks-shifts-to-the-right/39491/ Independent commentary and news from Israel & Palestine Sun, 19 May 2013 09:07:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: Moriel Rothman http://972mag.com/j-street-3rd-annual-conference-marks-shifts-to-the-right/39491/comment-page-1/#comment-53026 Moriel Rothman Fri, 30 Mar 2012 23:21:08 +0000 http://972mag.com/?p=39491#comment-53026 @Joel, Thank you for your thoughtful response. Firstly, I agree with you- J Street should not have to choose between its lobbying role and its role as a grassroots organization based on left wing values. I wrote that "I am afraid that J Street is steering more towards the former, at the expense of the latter." I do not want the latter to be forgotten, lost, washed away in the flow of DC politics. J Street absolutely should seek to pursue its political goals, but I just wanted to caution against doing so in ways that harm its potential to be a pluralistic left wing space. . As for the question of big tent, I only partially agree with you. I think J Street should be a space for extremely open debate- I frankly would be thrilled to see almost any right wing figure on a panel at a J Street conference- but I think that there is a difference between bringing someone like Olmert as a "opposing view" and bringing someone like Olmert as an honoree and "one of ours," which was what J Street chose to do at this last conference. . I am all for bridge building, and I so deeply agree with you (and had the same experience) that J Street enables many to bring a more Left wing discourse into their communities, in a way that is less threatening for many mainstream Jews, than, say, +972. I have no problem with J Street speaking in the language of moderation, of talking about Zionist values and calling itself Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace. My only problems arise when J Street takes positions that I see as not only compromises, but as basically opposed to the values of much of its left wing membership, it's decision to support the US Veto in September looming the largest, Olmert and the other smaller flaws of this recent conference coming in next. . I want to reiterate, in case this was not clear from this specific article, that I have such deep respect for what J Street is doing, and that this article was written from a place of loving concern, in hopes that the organization will take heed of criticism and perhaps curb its willingness to compromise on fundamental values, and away from the Left. I am certainly not saying that J Street should not be, or should stop trying to be a political force, just that perhaps we need to take a moment and consider whether some making decisions like supporting the veto or honoring Olmert may not harm our capacity to speak with clarity about what our values actually are. @Joel,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Firstly, I agree with you- J Street should not have to choose between its lobbying role and its role as a grassroots organization based on left wing values. I wrote that “I am afraid that J Street is steering more towards the former, at the expense of the latter.” I do not want the latter to be forgotten, lost, washed away in the flow of DC politics. J Street absolutely should seek to pursue its political goals, but I just wanted to caution against doing so in ways that harm its potential to be a pluralistic left wing space.
.
As for the question of big tent, I only partially agree with you. I think J Street should be a space for extremely open debate- I frankly would be thrilled to see almost any right wing figure on a panel at a J Street conference- but I think that there is a difference between bringing someone like Olmert as a “opposing view” and bringing someone like Olmert as an honoree and “one of ours,” which was what J Street chose to do at this last conference.
.
I am all for bridge building, and I so deeply agree with you (and had the same experience) that J Street enables many to bring a more Left wing discourse into their communities, in a way that is less threatening for many mainstream Jews, than, say, +972. I have no problem with J Street speaking in the language of moderation, of talking about Zionist values and calling itself Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace. My only problems arise when J Street takes positions that I see as not only compromises, but as basically opposed to the values of much of its left wing membership, it’s decision to support the US Veto in September looming the largest, Olmert and the other smaller flaws of this recent conference coming in next.
.
I want to reiterate, in case this was not clear from this specific article, that I have such deep respect for what J Street is doing, and that this article was written from a place of loving concern, in hopes that the organization will take heed of criticism and perhaps curb its willingness to compromise on fundamental values, and away from the Left. I am certainly not saying that J Street should not be, or should stop trying to be a political force, just that perhaps we need to take a moment and consider whether some making decisions like supporting the veto or honoring Olmert may not harm our capacity to speak with clarity about what our values actually are.

]]> By: Moriel Rothman http://972mag.com/j-street-3rd-annual-conference-marks-shifts-to-the-right/39491/comment-page-1/#comment-52900 Moriel Rothman Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:13:48 +0000 http://972mag.com/?p=39491#comment-52900 @Kung Fu Jew. I think that you are in part right, and I certainly acknowledge that I have shifted to the left. ("This year, I attended J Street’s third national conference as a Jerusalem-based activist who has shifted further left after spending more and more time in the Occupied Territories.") But I think that I am not alone in noticing that J Street itself has shifted rightwards. This conference had less Palestinians, less Arabs, no conversation of BDS, less of the "radical left..." And September, I think, as compared to January 2011, in which J Street came out against a US Veto, I think is still the most disturbing example of J Street taking a position not because its based on our values, but rather because it will be seen well in the eyes of the mainstream (which is, on the Is-Pal issue, basically right wing). @Kung Fu Jew. I think that you are in part right, and I certainly acknowledge that I have shifted to the left. (“This year, I attended J Street’s third national conference as a Jerusalem-based activist who has shifted further left after spending more and more time in the Occupied Territories.”) But I think that I am not alone in noticing that J Street itself has shifted rightwards. This conference had less Palestinians, less Arabs, no conversation of BDS, less of the “radical left…” And September, I think, as compared to January 2011, in which J Street came out against a US Veto, I think is still the most disturbing example of J Street taking a position not because its based on our values, but rather because it will be seen well in the eyes of the mainstream (which is, on the Is-Pal issue, basically right wing).

]]> By: Joel http://972mag.com/j-street-3rd-annual-conference-marks-shifts-to-the-right/39491/comment-page-1/#comment-52456 Joel Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:18:25 +0000 http://972mag.com/?p=39491#comment-52456 Moriel Rothman, . Thank you very much for a very perceptive analysis of J Street. I agree completely with the two core goals you identified and the tension between realizing them. However, does it really have to choose between them and has it? . From what you say, J-street still invites and encourages discussion also with people who don't conform to it's official lobbying policies. For sure, there could be more of it and from a wider spectrum, as you note, but can't this widening of the discourse happen at the same time as J Street pursues it's defined agenda (the two state solution) in it's lobbying activity? . I think J Street benefits from having as wide of a roof as possible, when it comes to supporters and activists simply because different target audiences are simply at different stages (of awareness or opinion). . For example, two years ago when J Street was new it helped me tremendously in bringing in another perspective in my small Finnish Jewish community. Criticism is simply much more efficient when it comes from a source you trust. Now, I think largely because J Street opened the door, I can quote articles from 972, which many times are much more critical than J Street. And I don't think I could do that now, if I had not started with J Street. . So, ideally, I think J Street could work as it is trying with the Beinart contraversy (and this is @XYZ too). We need people with the credentials of Beinart to stand up and make a case for a boycott of the settlements. Not because it's necessarily the right thing to do, but because it inspires the kind of responses, for example Stranger gave him. And again, the importance of Strenger's response is not necessarily that he is right, but the fact that he took Beinart's arguments to heart and engaged in some introspection of his own thoughts. The point is, that I think this illustrates the gradual process of real change, that has to come from criticism that is taken into heart; and J Street, being just big and respectable enough, can facilitate this, by disagreeing with Beinart's opinion, yet inviting him to continue arguing for it. . In other words, I see J Street's greatest strength and accomplishment as a bridge-builder. A friendly facilitator for change. That gives a forum to everyone from BDS supporters to congress lobbyists to engage in critical argument in such a way that it does not become a shouting match and pure exercise validating one's own opinion further. . It's not enough to make the case, we must actually get through to people. And I don't think we can get through anyone without relating to them in a common language. That's why translators like J Street is needed. Moriel Rothman,
.
Thank you very much for a very perceptive analysis of J Street. I agree completely with the two core goals you identified and the tension between realizing them. However, does it really have to choose between them and has it?
.
From what you say, J-street still invites and encourages discussion also with people who don’t conform to it’s official lobbying policies. For sure, there could be more of it and from a wider spectrum, as you note, but can’t this widening of the discourse happen at the same time as J Street pursues it’s defined agenda (the two state solution) in it’s lobbying activity?
.
I think J Street benefits from having as wide of a roof as possible, when it comes to supporters and activists simply because different target audiences are simply at different stages (of awareness or opinion).
.
For example, two years ago when J Street was new it helped me tremendously in bringing in another perspective in my small Finnish Jewish community. Criticism is simply much more efficient when it comes from a source you trust. Now, I think largely because J Street opened the door, I can quote articles from 972, which many times are much more critical than J Street. And I don’t think I could do that now, if I had not started with J Street.
.
So, ideally, I think J Street could work as it is trying with the Beinart contraversy (and this is @XYZ too). We need people with the credentials of Beinart to stand up and make a case for a boycott of the settlements. Not because it’s necessarily the right thing to do, but because it inspires the kind of responses, for example Stranger gave him. And again, the importance of Strenger’s response is not necessarily that he is right, but the fact that he took Beinart’s arguments to heart and engaged in some introspection of his own thoughts. The point is, that I think this illustrates the gradual process of real change, that has to come from criticism that is taken into heart; and J Street, being just big and respectable enough, can facilitate this, by disagreeing with Beinart’s opinion, yet inviting him to continue arguing for it.
.
In other words, I see J Street’s greatest strength and accomplishment as a bridge-builder. A friendly facilitator for change. That gives a forum to everyone from BDS supporters to congress lobbyists to engage in critical argument in such a way that it does not become a shouting match and pure exercise validating one’s own opinion further.
.
It’s not enough to make the case, we must actually get through to people. And I don’t think we can get through anyone without relating to them in a common language. That’s why translators like J Street is needed.

]]> By: Rebecca http://972mag.com/j-street-3rd-annual-conference-marks-shifts-to-the-right/39491/comment-page-1/#comment-52411 Rebecca Wed, 28 Mar 2012 19:51:54 +0000 http://972mag.com/?p=39491#comment-52411 Richard, As Moriel accurately notes in the very first sentence of this post, half of J Street's self-defined mission is "to ensure a broad debate on Israel and the Middle East in national politics and the American Jewish community" (jstreet.org/about). Ensuring a broad public debate is not the traditional role of a Washington DC lobby. The way J Street has implemented the "broadening debate" part of its mission is by running a public relation campaign to promote its two-state policy platform. This is, in fact, a way to influence public opinion rather than to promote debate at a grassroots level. I think this disconnect is part of the reason why J Street is perceived by some of its current and former activists as engaging in doublespeak (cf Naftali Kaminski's post on this site). Richard,

As Moriel accurately notes in the very first sentence of this post, half of J Street’s self-defined mission is “to ensure a broad debate on Israel and the Middle East in national politics and the American Jewish community” (jstreet.org/about). Ensuring a broad public debate is not the traditional role of a Washington DC lobby.

The way J Street has implemented the “broadening debate” part of its mission is by running a public relation campaign to promote its two-state policy platform. This is, in fact, a way to influence public opinion rather than to promote debate at a grassroots level. I think this disconnect is part of the reason why J Street is perceived by some of its current and former activists as engaging in doublespeak (cf Naftali Kaminski’s post on this site).

]]> By: Kung Fu Jew 18 http://972mag.com/j-street-3rd-annual-conference-marks-shifts-to-the-right/39491/comment-page-1/#comment-52399 Kung Fu Jew 18 Wed, 28 Mar 2012 19:16:10 +0000 http://972mag.com/?p=39491#comment-52399 I think Moriel Rothman is an amazing leader and thoughtful activist. That said, I think he's confused J Street's move to the right with his own move to the left. I think Moriel Rothman is an amazing leader and thoughtful activist. That said, I think he’s confused J Street’s move to the right with his own move to the left.

]]> By: Richard Witty http://972mag.com/j-street-3rd-annual-conference-marks-shifts-to-the-right/39491/comment-page-1/#comment-52389 Richard Witty Wed, 28 Mar 2012 18:36:29 +0000 http://972mag.com/?p=39491#comment-52389 Lee, J Street is a lobbying organization. It might get support from grass roots, and declare that it represents grass roots, but those are money and numbers (the stuff of lobbying). Discussion and the forming of goals and comment and dissent occur elsewhere. J Street can not for example advocate for civil disobedience if it means violating laws, or it will threaten its tax status. Its ok for it to have a limited role. Lee,
J Street is a lobbying organization. It might get support from grass roots, and declare that it represents grass roots, but those are money and numbers (the stuff of lobbying).

Discussion and the forming of goals and comment and dissent occur elsewhere.

J Street can not for example advocate for civil disobedience if it means violating laws, or it will threaten its tax status.

Its ok for it to have a limited role.

]]> By: Lee Diamond http://972mag.com/j-street-3rd-annual-conference-marks-shifts-to-the-right/39491/comment-page-1/#comment-52345 Lee Diamond Wed, 28 Mar 2012 16:49:04 +0000 http://972mag.com/?p=39491#comment-52345 I had the pleasure of meeting Moriel Rothman at the conference. I think the most important challenge he poses to J Street's strategy is his point that the organization will not be able to catch up to AIPAC in time to save Israel from itself. I do agree that this IS the KEY point: Can J Street do the educational spade work, mobilization of support from the public & politicians in time to make a difference? I think there was a wide range of perspectives at the conference. I don't think more one-state advocates were so critical because I do not see Israel ever agreeing to one state........ at least not before a Two-State period FIRST. I share Moriel's concern about the key point I cited. Personally, while I admire the dedication of a lot of people associated with J Street, I do not understand how activists who have devoted so many years to this struggle can leave the conference with the current posture of the organization. That is not a criticism. That is just how I feel personally. This current situation is horrific. It is profoundly anti-Jewish. Israel today does not stand for or represent Jewish values. Jews who support Israel today are turning their backs on our tradition. I hasten to add though, that i am not working inside the Jewish community. I do know how resistant people are to what Moriel and I are talking about. I am somewhat torn, but I think we should be sounding the alarm. I had the pleasure of meeting Moriel Rothman at the conference. I think the most important challenge he poses to J Street’s strategy is his point that the organization will not be able to catch up to AIPAC in time to save Israel from itself. I do agree that this IS the KEY point: Can J Street do the educational spade work, mobilization of support from the public & politicians in time to make a difference?

I think there was a wide range of perspectives at the conference. I don’t think more one-state advocates were so critical because I do not see Israel ever agreeing to one state…….. at least not before a Two-State period FIRST.

I share Moriel’s concern about the key point I cited. Personally, while I admire the dedication of a lot of people associated with J Street, I do not understand how activists who have devoted so many years to this struggle can leave the conference with the current posture of the organization. That is not a criticism. That is just how I feel personally. This current situation is horrific. It is profoundly anti-Jewish. Israel today does not stand for or represent Jewish values. Jews who support Israel today are turning their backs on our tradition.

I hasten to add though, that i am not working inside the Jewish community. I do know how resistant people are to what Moriel and I are talking about. I am somewhat torn, but I think we should be sounding the alarm.

]]> By: Lee Diamond http://972mag.com/j-street-3rd-annual-conference-marks-shifts-to-the-right/39491/comment-page-1/#comment-52339 Lee Diamond Wed, 28 Mar 2012 16:26:57 +0000 http://972mag.com/?p=39491#comment-52339 Richard, J Street is grassroots. You cannot ignore that. Richard, J Street is grassroots. You cannot ignore that.

]]> By: XYZ http://972mag.com/j-street-3rd-annual-conference-marks-shifts-to-the-right/39491/comment-page-1/#comment-52325 XYZ Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:26:40 +0000 http://972mag.com/?p=39491#comment-52325 Here is an excellent piece by veteran peace-camp member Carlos Strenger in Ha'aretz on why he has finally come to the conclusion that the 2-state solution is dead, why Israel will not leave the settlements, why Beinart and J-Street don't have any understanding of Israel and how Israelis think. He even moves in the direction of confederation as a practical solutaion to the problem of giving the Palestinians more rights within the present framework: http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/strenger-than-fiction/open-letter-to-peter-beinart-boycotting-the-settlements-will-not-save-the-two-state-solution-1.421302 Here is an excellent piece by veteran peace-camp member Carlos Strenger in Ha’aretz on why he has finally come to the conclusion that the 2-state solution is dead, why Israel will not leave the settlements, why Beinart and J-Street don’t have any understanding of Israel and how Israelis think. He even moves in the direction of confederation as a practical solutaion to the problem of giving the Palestinians more rights within the present framework:

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/strenger-than-fiction/open-letter-to-peter-beinart-boycotting-the-settlements-will-not-save-the-two-state-solution-1.421302

]]> By: Richard Witty http://972mag.com/j-street-3rd-annual-conference-marks-shifts-to-the-right/39491/comment-page-1/#comment-52275 Richard Witty Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:50:05 +0000 http://972mag.com/?p=39491#comment-52275 Again, J Street is a lobbying organization, NOT a grass roots social issues advocacy organization. Its presence does not prohibit you from other thoughts, writing, efforts. The only censorial impact it could have is on the issues of 'electibility' if proponents stray off message. Better that it does what it does, than deviate to what is paralyzing or even illegal for a legal lobbying organization to do. Again,
J Street is a lobbying organization, NOT a grass roots social issues advocacy organization.

Its presence does not prohibit you from other thoughts, writing, efforts. The only censorial impact it could have is on the issues of ‘electibility’ if proponents stray off message.

Better that it does what it does, than deviate to what is paralyzing or even illegal for a legal lobbying organization to do.

]]>