J Street

Here's an exciting development -- J Street, a new, progressive, Israel- and Mideast-focused organization has launched. The main idea behind the outfit is to address the paradox that most Jewish Americans have liberals views on the issues, including such matters as West Bank settlements and the need for a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and yet the most politically influential members of our community take a very hawkish line on US policy throughout the entire region. Meanwhile, neoconservative foreign policy in America has, despite its "pro-Israel" orientation, produced nothing but disastrous results for the United States and Israel alike.

A lot of the traditional peace camp outfits are lending support to this effort, but what sets it aside is the J Street PAC which will do the kind of spadework in terms of fundraising that's traditionally been lacking. Meanwhile, they're also trying to build a MoveOn-style list of supporters that will be able to weigh-in on controversies as they arise, and also make the point to nervous politicians that they shouldn't just assume that ever donor or volunteer they have with a Jewish-sounding name is committed to the Sheldon Adelson political agenda.

Comments

Yep, and once Sheldon Adelson has a change of heart and writes them a check for $250M, Nancy Pelosi and the other elected Democrats will even take them seriously...

Posted by RKU | April 15, 2008 12:33 PM

Ah, the ghost of Neville Chamberlain lives on. For anybody who thinks that the Palestinians desire peace with Israel, I have a nice bridge over the Potomac I will sell them cheap. It's brand new, only put into service last summer.

Posted by SLC | April 15, 2008 12:41 PM

Shut up SLC you twit.

Posted by Cliche | April 15, 2008 12:48 PM

Re Cliche

Mr. Cliche is cordially invited to take his comment and deposit inside his posterior orifice.

Posted by SLC | April 15, 2008 12:51 PM

Ugh. What a tool.

Posted by Cliche | April 15, 2008 12:53 PM

I think it would be a wonderful development, but I wonder exactly how progressive the movement is.

Its issues page mention Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, without mentioning whether that's all of Jerusalem or just part of it.

It also calls for the monitoring of and opposition to the expansion of settlements, but nothing as far as I can find about encouraging withdrawing from settlements. It looks more middle-of-the-road than truly progressive to me.

Posted by Bill L. | April 15, 2008 12:56 PM

Before the Iraq invasion, 2002: The Israeli-firsters screamed, "Jaques Chirac was the new Chamberlain, ... Gerhard Schroeder was the new Chamberlain, ... Hans Blix was the new Chaberlain! .... it's 1938 again and Saddam Hussein is the new Hitler!"

Now the Israeli-firsters say this new Lobby is Chamberlain. And of course Saddam was not the new Hitler, the new Hitler is Achmedninijad. How many Americans must die for a small neocolonialist Apartheid state, smack center in the Middle East?

Posted by max bootlicker | April 15, 2008 1:10 PM

It looks more middle-of-the-road than truly progressive to me.

Well, to our friend SLC, that makes them fanatic anti-Semites.

Of course to SLC, Sheldon Adelson is ALSO a fanatic anti-Semite...

Posted by RKU | April 15, 2008 1:11 PM

Agreed, Bill L.
The settlements and Jerusalem as a shared-capital are the lowest common denominator of a pro-peace approach. I'm also really tired of "pro-Israel". It is patronizing towards Israelis and unfair to the Palestinians who are owed the benefit of the doubt as far as Americans (and Israeli) intentions are concerned. It also offers one more excuse for Israel not to grow up and start acting like the responsible state it purports to be. We are "pro-you". We like you no matter what. It basically says, we are with your narrative of events. How is that balanced or progressive?

Posted by Emily | April 15, 2008 1:15 PM

FINALLY. I was really getting worried about the lack of the pro-Israel voice in Washington.

In seriousness, I'm glad to see a pro-Israel organization that pursues an adult, reality-based policy rather than one based on the hastening of the end-times.

It's not clear whether J Street sees criticism of Israel's policies and action as grounds for valid disagreement, but it looks like they're leaning that direction. That's a positive development.

Posted by Adam | April 15, 2008 1:20 PM

I don't think it succeeds like moveon or the dailykos. The people really passionate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in this country are on the other side of the fence (and there are some really rich ones in that camp which makes up for their relatively small numbers). The only foreign policy issue which genuinely excites large numbers of liberal Democrats is ending the war in Iraq and if you think about it wanting disengagement from a country is kind of the opposite of an interest in foreign policy.

Posted by Linus | April 15, 2008 1:41 PM

Bill L. and Emily, check out the section of the J Street website about a two-state solution. That might make you feel better about our stance on settlements and Jerusalem:
http://jstreet.org/page/israel-palestine

Full disclosure, I'm the Online Director for J Street.

Posted by Isaac Luria | April 15, 2008 1:44 PM

I agree with Bill L. and Emily. As a Jewish person who recoils at the sight of Dershowitz myself, I was very excited to hear about J Street. Now, I didn't necessarily expect a bunch of people promoting a one state solution etc., but I hoped for something slightly more distinguishable from AIPAC in terms of policy. Still, it's a clear shift in tone, and that certainly matters.

Posted by alex | April 15, 2008 2:18 PM

Here's another good site:

http://southjerusalem.com/

You'll notice they reference J street in their first post. I've been reading it for two months now and am totally hooked.

Posted by fostert | April 15, 2008 2:22 PM

FINALLY. I was really getting worried about the lack of the pro-Israel voice in Washington.

In seriousness, I'm glad to see a pro-Israel organization that pursues an adult, reality-based policy rather than one based on the hastening of the end-times.

The real question in my mind is why is this finally happening in 2008? It's not like the deleterious impact of AIPAC on American politics hasn't been well understood for a couple of decades now.

What the heck took so long?

Posted by flory | April 15, 2008 2:37 PM

@ Mr. Luria

The organization looks exciting and important.

I find the site hard to read. The site looks cool, but everything is a little too big. The text sizing option is good, but I want to go smaller, not bigger. A lot of the colorful boxes are a little big too. The whole thing would be more readable if it was tightened up a little.

Posted by Neil L | April 15, 2008 2:43 PM

I have no problem with ephemeral groups like these, as long as they don't advocate twisting Israel's arm.

Posted by Dan | April 15, 2008 3:16 PM

Re Isaac Luria

Having visited Mr. Lurias' Jstreet web site and looked over the members of his advisory council, most of whom I have never heard of, a couple of names strike one as not being in accord with the stated purpose of the organization that purports to be a pro-Israel organization. These are Lincoln Chaffee and Robert Malley.

Former Senator Chaffee is noted for being one of the most anti-Israel members of the Senate during his, thankfully short tenure therein.

Mr. Malley is a congenital liar whose recollections of the events at Camp David during the final Clinton administration attempt for a Palestinian/Israeli agreement are 180 degrees away from those of other American participants, particularly former President Clinton and Dennis Ross. Mr. Malley is a noted admirer and apologist of the late and unlamented terrorist Yasir Arafat. Mr. Malleys' father was a vicious antisemite whose hatred of the State of Israel rivaled that of Mr. Amadinejad.

I have to say that the presence of these two men does not inspire confidence in the Jstreet Organizations' stated goals and objectives.

However, a more pertinent question arises. Where is there a similar organization on the Palestinian side? Mr. Luria is free to reside in Israel and voice his opposition to the Governments' policies. Any potential counterpart to him residing in Gaza City or Ramallah would be lucky to survive the night.

Posted by SLC | April 15, 2008 3:18 PM

I have no problem with ephemeral groups like these, as long as they don't advocate twisting Israel's arm.

Yeah. If they do that, we should kick in the door, grab them and ship them off to concentration camps.

Posted by Freddie | April 15, 2008 3:46 PM

Congratulations, SLC! You officially lost the argument in record time.

My hat is off to you, sir.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | April 15, 2008 4:11 PM

I already donated $$. I've been waiting for something like this for a long time.
www.jstreet.org

Posted by JOhn | April 15, 2008 4:16 PM

Issac Luria - you (and project J) are a disgrace at so many levels, it is hard to even know where to begin. In a very real sense, you are the Jewish equivalent of Jim Jones - you package suicide in progressive political kool aid.

It's sad that you'd sell out the Jewish people simply because you want to avoid cold stares at the faculty wine and cheese party or because you can't bear bad words written about you in the Nation. But then, I'm not progressive, so I guess I can't understand the pain of being blackballed from good, Jew-hating, left-wing company.

BTW - is your use of the name "Issac Luria" supposed to be ironic? Issac Luria, aka the "Ari" (or Lion), one of the greatest of all kabbalists (right wing, Likudnik Zionists to the folks here), was born in Safed in the 16th Century. This original Likudnik Zionist settler-occupier is the spiritual grandfather of the Chasidic movement generally, one of the paragons of Chabad Chassidism (another set of right wing, Likudnik Zionists), and a major intellectual influence on the work of the great Rav Kook.

Frankly, you and the rest of the project J judenrats are not fit to carry Luria's jock (or tzitzit, to use a more culturally fitting reference), much less use his name.

Posted by Eagle613 | April 15, 2008 4:31 PM

I looked over the Israel-Palestine Two State Solution page, and I must confess to being even more pessimistic now.

I wholeheartedly embrace anyone offering support for diplomacy instead of another neo-colonial venture in Iran, but I also agree with Alex in that J Street appears to be a weak tea form of moderation.

"allowing Israeli incorporation of a majority of settlers" - How does this do anything other than reward Israel for an illegal policy - settlement expansion - which continues to this day?

Same with: "a division of Jerusalem that is based on demographic realities"

Doesn't this simply vindicate Ariel Sharon's facts-on-the-ground strategy?

I think the points on Palestinian state viability and contiguity are great, but overall this seems to me to be a slightly improved form of the 2000 negotiations - a proposal that largely shafts the Palestinians at the expense of the settlements and placating Likud.

Alex is right in that this is a start, but given American Jews' liberal attitudes, I'm disappointed that this new group doesn't appear to draw a very large distinction from the current Lobby on the I-P issue.

Posted by Bill L. | April 15, 2008 4:32 PM

Eagle613,

Are not the Satmar Chassidim as much heirs to the Chassidic tradition as Chabad Lubovich (which actually represents a sort of fusion between Litvak and Chassidic elements)? And we all know what the Satmar say about Zionism ...

Posted by DAS | April 15, 2008 5:11 PM

If J-Street advocates, enables or excuses one single jewish settler to remain on the land Israel conquered in 1967, it's part of the problem, not an 'exciting development'.

Generally, there are no shortage of jewish activists and so on who are to the left-liberal side of the AIPAC hard-right consensus, the problem is that they are mostly just a tiny little bit to the left of the AIPAC hard-right consensus, prone to overly congratulating themselves on not being quite as bigoted as the others, and making let's-be-pragmatic arguments for Jewish settler chauvinism, which are not much better than straight-chauvinist arguments for accepting the same policies.

The real hope in US politics on this issue is that lobbying is taken up by a much wider range of US citizens and groups, outside jewish circles, rather than looking for change from 'more liberal' jewish activists.

Posted by otto | April 15, 2008 5:30 PM

Re otto

Settlements today, settlements tomorrow, settlements to the far horizon. Mr. otto doesn't like it? He is cordially invited to take his dislike and deposit it in his posterior orifice.

Posted by SLC | April 15, 2008 6:04 PM

The main idea behind the outfit(Matthew Yglesias, A.B. '03) is to address the paradox that most Jewish Americans have liberals views on the issues

Posted by 4tehlulz | April 15, 2008 6:25 PM

If it's strictly a Jewish organization - it'll be hopeless. It'll wind up being a vanity organization that pats everyone in it on the back while Israel continues to build more settlements, murder more Palestinian children and tightens its mass starvation blockade of Gaza. By the time it's off and running- SLC will be on the board of directors.

Posted by Trevor | April 15, 2008 6:39 PM

I have to agree with Trevor. MJ Rosenberg is excited about it over at TPM, but, as the old lady used to say, "Where's the beef?" (Read MJ's other article on the same page about the settlements, though, it's pretty good.)

Until people with some political and monetary clout can force the radical Zionists who are running Israel and the likes of AIPAC in this country to get kicked out of positions of power, nothing is going to be resolved in the Palestinian situation.

Obama's opened a frickin' Web site in Hebrew in Israel just to prove he's as big an AIPAC ass licker as Hillary.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 15, 2008 7:00 PM

Re trevor

In response to antisemitic cocksucking fucktard trevor, I will state that I wouldn't be caught dead on the same advisory board as Robert Malley. Mr. Malley is more to Mr. trevors' liking then to mine.

Re Richard Steven Hack

Our favorite ex-con, the notorious bank robber weighs in again with his usual display of stupidity. In the world of Hack, the crack, anybody who thinks that the State of Israel is a legitimate country is a radical Zionist.

Posted by SLC | April 15, 2008 7:07 PM

Mr. Luria,

The two-state solution you put forth on your website is not encouraging, in particular your support for a "division of Jerusalem that is based on demographic realities". As Bill L. says, this is too vague and precisely in line with Sharon's policy of creating facts-on-the-ground. Also, swapping land in recent times and in the rhetoric of far-right hawks has come to mean incorporating unwanted Arab villages currently in Israel into a new Palestinian state, in exchange for the large settlements. A glance at the map shows that the large settlements Israel seeks to hang onto are smack in the middle of the West Bank and would continue to be accessed through "Jewish-only" roads that carve up the entire entity, making it unviable in the first place and still under Israeli control. NO settlements. Basta.
I am, however, pleased that the refugee problem is addressed in any form, even if it is less comprehensive or explicitly fair to Palestinians than I would have hoped.

Posted by Emily | April 15, 2008 7:18 PM

Ah, to get SLC's panties in a tizzy - that's always sweet. My question, bubbe, is - why aren't you with your neurotic brethren at Littlegreenfootballs? Why do you even bother to roost at a site where 9 times out of 10 - you're gonna have a conniption fit?

Posted by Trevor | April 15, 2008 7:47 PM

Full disclosure: My preference is for a bi-national state or any transitional 2-state solution that abandons the demographic war (i.e. settling Moldovans and Russians at the expense of the native population) and seeks a secular solution for the entire entity in the future. That doesn't mean I wouldn't support efforts for a just and viable two-state solution.

Posted by Emily | April 15, 2008 8:04 PM

The J-Street video is appalling. How are Olmert and Tony Blair moderate voices? Its all about Israel, again-- Israel's security. What about Palestinian security? Why is it always about the Israeli need for security? Aren't they more secure than the Palestinians? Don't we need to recognize the Palestinian right to exist in a safe state, and show one shred of good faith?

There are Jews in America who care about a just solution for the Palestinians as well, because we're sick off all nonsense, this alliance of convenience with Wahhabists and rapture Evangelicals, in our name.

Posted by Angry Jew | April 15, 2008 8:09 PM

Re Angry Jew

Unfortunately, the Palestinians consider a just solution for them to be an agreement by the Government of Israel to go out of business. As long as they have that attitude, there will be no peace in Palestine and the Palestinians will continue to wallow in their self induced misery. One can lead a horse to water but one can't force him to drink.

Re trevor

One must feel a little sorry for Mr. trevor. How few Americans agree with his view that the Government of Israel should go of business. Funnily enough, the man who appointed his father to the federal bench, although an antisemite, was a great fan of the State of Israel in general and his counterpart Golda Meir in particular.

Posted by SLC | April 15, 2008 8:23 PM

SLC,

How ironic that you do not see the absurdity of your own statement: "the man...although an antisemite, was a great fan of the State of Israel."

And why is it that quite a few anti-Semites are "big fans" of Israel (Angry Jew pointed out the alliance of convenience with Wahhabists and rapture Christians)? Is it perhaps that Israel's actions don't reflect well on the Jews? If an anti-Semite is a biggot, might the bigotry and racism of Israel not appeal to him?

You find it funny; I find it one of the more tragic chapters in Israeli history-- anyone who gives us cart blanche to wreak havoc and behave destructively, we embrace. Heck, we'll even sell them some land in the occupied Golan!

Posted by Emily | April 15, 2008 8:46 PM

SLC,

How ironic that you do not see the absurdity of your own statement: "the man...although an antisemite, was a great fan of the State of Israel."

And why is it that quite a few anti-Semites are "big fans" of Israel (Angry Jew pointed out the alliance of convenience with Wahhabists and rapture Christians)? Is it perhaps that Israel's actions don't reflect well on the Jews? If an anti-Semite is a bigot, might the bigotry and racism of Israel not appeal to him?

You find it funny; I find it one of the more tragic chapters in Israeli history-- anyone who gives us cart blanche to wreak havoc and behave destructively, we embrace. Heck, we'll even sell them some land in the occupied Golan!

Posted by Emily | April 15, 2008 8:48 PM

Apartheid Israel will only "stay in business" if it stops crucifying the Palestinians. As many of the Shin Bet alta cockas have already acknowledged- it's digging its own grave. Who wants to do business with a country that's a garrison State, where you can't even get a slice of pizza on a Friday night without fear of being blown up? And, how long do you think it'll be before American taxpayers say "Enough is enough?" Most Americans already agree that they don't want to be governed by wicked and odious traitors like Libermania and his dog-boy SLC. I think McCain will be hurt by his association with Lieberman because most Americans want a government that cares more about them than merely if it's "good for the Jews."

Posted by Trevor | April 15, 2008 9:38 PM

DSC - Yes, of course, Satmar is part of the chassidic tradition. No question. But notably, Satmar does not use the "Nusach Ari" - the Arizal's prayer book - as does Chabad, and Satmar is certainly very far away from the philosophy of Rav Kook, which was in turn heavily influenced by Chabad and by the Ari. Chabad Lubavitch chassidism is a fascinating fusion of Litvak, Chasidic, and Sefardic folk traditions and intellectual currents. By far the most interesting (IMO) and open-minded of all Chasidic groups.

Satmar, by contrast, is a very insular community. Hungarian in origin, it was almost wiped out during the Holocaust (you know, the thing that the Palestinians at once deny ever occurred while also avowing their intent to finish the job Hitler started)and reacted by becoming even more insular, and more hostile to the outside world. Satmar's opposition to Zionism seems more due to the fact that the early Zionists were secularists, who rejected old time religion, than anything else. The 19th Century battles between the normative "rabbinic" Jews and the heretical "reform" Jews were probably more intense and more bitter in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire than any other place in Europe, and for Satmar, the old conflicts have never ended.

Trevor - How long ago did you discover that Lieberman and his Christian slaves run the ZOG and control the US? Any other facts to share?

Emily/Angry Jew - Just curious - did you have issues with your parents when you were children that have caused the irrational thinking, self-directed anger, and childish acting out reflected in your comments? Freudian therapy might be something you should consider. It could help.

Posted by Eagle613 | April 15, 2008 10:57 PM

Great - all the Zionist freaks from TPM are moving over here.

Where's Bar-Kochba?

As for "self-directed anger", perhaps this will help:

Self-help for self-haters
Zionists have managed to unforgivably drag their religion's name through the mud for more than 60 years.
by Seth Freedman
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/seth_freedman/2008/04/selfhelp_for_selfhaters.html

Money Quotes:

Though my detractors often claim otherwise, I see myself as anything but a "self-hating Jew", and the more vocal I am in my criticism of the Israeli government's crimes, the more credence I give that claim. I passionately love my religion, and just as fervently defend its teachings to the hilt when it comes to how to treat our fellow man. That Zionism has come along, hijacked Jewish doctrines, and twisted them to form part of an all-out supremacist movement is not something I can swallow if I want to stay loyal to the true values of Judaism.

Unfortunately, by demanding that the world sees Zionism as a philosophy essentially based on Jewish principles, Zionists have managed to unforgivably drag the religion's name through the mud for over 60 years.

Sneering soldiers manning checkpoints, freshly-demolished family homes, welded-shut shop fronts, blood-thirsty settler graffiti crudely daubed on Palestinian houses ... the list was endless, and the evidence was overwhelming. While it was clearly an invaluable experience for those on the tour who'd never seen the awful truth of the occupation up close and personal, I'd seen it all before - not that it gets any easier to take, however many times I am exposed to the reality.

The dominant form of Zionism might be a racist, supremacist ideology - but Judaism is most definitely not. And the more Jews who make this distinction, the better: both for the security of their fellow Jews, as well as to prove to the Israeli authorities that they most definitely do not have carte blanche to crush the Palestinians for ever more under the guise of religious values.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 16, 2008 12:08 AM

"Trevor - How long ago did you discover that Lieberman and his Christian slaves run the ZOG and control the US? Any other facts to share? (Eagle 613)"

Yeah- fact #1: You're no eagle, but rather as they say at LGF- a *moonbat. I know- there's no such thing as a neocon, and the Executive branch/U.S. Congress is an "honest broker" in the Middle East. Oh, and oh yeah- anyone who points out the disastrous U.S. entangling alliance with Apartheid Israel is a "virulent anti-Semite" or a "self-hating Jew". It's all one big "canard". Israel is the Land of Milk and Honey and the Palestinians are all Jew-hating "shvatz goyim". Mazel tov, boychick! Let's make aliyah and reclaim Eretz Israel!

Posted by Trevor | April 16, 2008 6:42 AM

Re Emily

"How ironic that you do not see the absurdity of your own statement: "the man...although an antisemite, was a great fan of the State of Israel.""

The reason why Richard Nixon was a great fan of the State of Israel and Golda Meir has nothing to do with his religious views, as he was, in fact, not very religious at all. He admired them because he respected their toughness in standing up to people who wished them ill.

Re Eagle613

Trying to have a serious discussion with Mr. trevor is a waste of time. Mr. trevor rants on and on about Israeli beastliness toward Palestinians while cheering on the Palestinians who blow up pizza parlors and fire rockets into Sderot. Mr. trevor, like Mr. Hack would be cheerleaders for Mr. Amadinejad if he tossed a nuke onto Tel Aviv.

Posted by SLC | April 16, 2008 6:57 AM

Trying to get Sick Loose Crackhead (SLC) to park his anal-retentive mind at LittleGreenFootballs is otiose. He insists on stinking up the joint with his canards, his callow sophistry, and his barmitzvah boy wit. Why he's not sclepping knishes for Dr. Laura (Schlesinger) I'll never know.

Posted by Trevor | April 16, 2008 7:06 AM

Re trevor

Mr. trevor makes a number of misstatements in his last rant.

1. I don't visit the littlegreenfootballs web site.

2. I don't listen to Dr. Schlesinger who I consider to be a bigoted hag.

Posted by SLC | April 16, 2008 8:21 AM