This is a guest post by Andrew Luger, a Partner at Greene Espel and Board Member of J Street Minnesota.
On October 20, 2010, the Minnesota chapter of J Street will host an exciting evening with two excellent speakers. The event will take place at Mount Zion synagogue in St. Paul. Jeremy Ben-Ami, the founder and president of J Street, and Colette Avital, a former Israeli ambassador and Deputy Speaker in the Knesset, will speak on the need for a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The entire community is invited to hear from these speakers, and to learn more about J Street.
This will be J Street’s first large event in the Twin Cities, and it is a good chance to introduce J Street to the Jewish community.
I became involved in J Street nationally and at the local level after my college-aged daughter began an internship in the Washington, D.C. office. This summer, Stephanie was exposed to Israeli military and political leaders, as well as long time pro-Israel American Jews who have dedicated their lives to the cause of working for peace in the Middle East. Stephanie is working on an honors thesis on the conflict, and chose this internship before heading off to Hebrew University. Her enthusiasm for the work of J Street, and the people she met, caused me to get involved.
J Street is a relatively young national Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace organization founded on the belief that the long term security of Israel and the United States depends on a two state solution to the conflict in the Middle East. J Street has attracted support nationally from American Jews like me who have been looking for a way to support Israel in a manner consistent with our ideals and beliefs. Over 500 Rabbis nationally have joined the J Street Rabbinic Cabinet, and leaders from around the United States are actively involved on a regular basis in forming policy, building the organization and reaching out to Israeli supporters such as Ambassador Avital and many others.
For me, J Street has provided an inspiring alternative voice in our community. In addition to lobbying for and providing education on the need for a two state solution, J Street has a political action committee that supports pro-Israel, pro-Peace candidates nationwide.
I am pleased to chair the October 20 event as we introduce J Street to the community. If you would like to attend, please email me at: [email protected]. To learn more about J Street, you can visit the web site, jstreet.org, or contact me.
Formal invitations to the October 20 event at Mt. Zion, with an RSVP email address, will be sent out soon. Click here for a pdf invitation with all the information about J Street’s October 20th Event.
Menu
Mr. Luger,
Thank you for sharing the information about this event with us.
I have always been rather curious about J Street, and I’m hoping that you might be able to enlighten me.
J Street presents its mission as being “pro-Israel and pro-peace.”
That sounds very nice to me.
In fact, every supporter of Israel I know – myself included – would say that they are pro-Israel, and are all absolutely, definitely pro-peace.
I do not know any supporter of Israel (aside from, I suppose, someone completely deranged), who does not want peace, and the end of war and violence, in Israel above all.
In my case personally, I also happen to be a very strong supported of a 2-state solution.
I believe it is absolutely the way of the future, and that it is extremely important for Israel’s future and Israel’s wellbeing to arrive at a reasonable 2-state solution that we can all agree on and stick to in a secure way as soon as possible.
So here is my question: how does this make J Street any different from all the other pro-Israel organizations?
How is it different from AIPAC, for instance?
AIPAC is pro-Israel, and it certainly seems to me to support peace in Israel – so what’s the difference?
And what would be the point of having another organization that stands for the same exact thing, just in different words?
Wouldn’t that just be muddling the message, and competing for the same resources in the same space?
Or does “pro-Israel, pro-peace” actually mean something else?
For instance, do you see some specific kind of peace, where if you feel that your particular vision of peace is not being achieved, or not fast enough, you would then no longer be “pro-Israel”?
Or are there very specific steps or sacrifices that you feel Israel must make, that fit into what “peace” means to you, where if those specific steps are not taken at the time or in the way you agree with, then you would no longer be “pro-Israel”?
Is there such a red line in this case?
Or alternatively, is there a red line where you would stop being “pro-peace”, if Israel was sufficiently endangered by the kind of peace proposal being offered?
Also, I’ve noticed that the J Street website states on its main policy page:
“J Street advocates for American policies that, in our view, advance the national interests of the United States, as well as the long-term interests and security of the state of Israel. J Street believes the policies it endorses improve the chances that America can promote a more stable and secure Middle East, an outcome that would serve the U.S. national interest, as well as Israel’s.”
This sounds to me like simply an organization that is promoting specific American foreign policy interests, especially as they relate to the Middle East.
Basically, promoting American national interests in a region of the world.
And there is nothing wrong with Americans wanting to promote American interests in the world, or in the Middle East.
But why call it “pro-Israel” at all?
What’s the point?
Why not just call this “pro-American Interests in the Middle East”?
What does being pro-Israel have to do with this policy statement at all?
If anything, this statement of policy to me implies that things may change at any time.
I could easily see it argued that America would be better off cosying up to Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, and throwing Israel over completely to make our Arab allies more comfortable, and potentially more friendly.
Wouldn’t that be just another American policy to “advance the national interests of the United States,” as the J Street policy statement suggests?
It may not be the policy right now, but if it seemed better for the US, would J Street support it? And if so, would it still be “pro-Israel”?
For that matter, this had been American policy for many decades in the past.
In the 1950’s, America stayed far far away from Israel.
Later on, Richard Nixon kept aid away from Israel as long as he could in 1973.
In fact, he held out all the way until Soviet Union pilots were actually seen personally flying against Israel on behalf of the Arab nations in the Yom Kippur War.
This would be a very historically plausible policy for the US for want to pursue in the Middle East, to further its interests.
So how does J Street see itself in all of this?
If it’s pro-certain American policies, what does it have to do with being pro-Israel? (Aside from being pro-Israel being in American interests in this particular moment)
And if it’s simply pro-Israel and pro-peace, well then, why bother having yet another organization that supports Israel and peace, since so many are already doing just that?
I am really not trying to challenge you in any way. I am genuinely curious about this, and would love to hear your thoughts.
Thank you in advance,
~Jenna
Jenna:
Thank you for the detailed and thoughtful response. These are great questions, and I do not take them as a challenge. In order to go through them all in a productive way, I would like to discuss the issues, rather than write answers. As people in my law firm will tell you, I prefer live conversations to emails, and I suppose posting on this site is similar. I work downtown and would be happy to discuss J Street and the questions you raise in person. I also hope you can attend the event on October 20. There will be an opportunity to ask questions of Jeremy. Let me know.
Andy
Lets clarify some points that Jenna has brought up.
Firstly, she claims to be a supporter of a 2 state solution. Well, err…I can point you to the archives of this blog where Jenna proudly endorsed a three state solution. That’s correct a three state solution whereby Gaza is Gaza and West Bank Palestinians can ask for their land AFTER THE AGREEMENT. Obviously that is quite far different from the two state solution that she now claims to support !!!!
Secondly, now she asks what is the difference between J-Street and AIPAC. Lets me help you and Jenna by enumerating some differences. And of course you can correct me if I am misstating facts.
Lets see, do J-Street members recognize the 1967 borders as the basis of starting negotiations. I think so. There are many AIPAC members and others (Jenna included) that state that the 1967 border line is some random line and why should not Jews be precluded from living in Palestine.
However I got no answer but asked to go where i came from when I asked if ALL Palestinians AND Israeli Arabs would be allowed the same.
Thirdly she now questions if advancing the interests of the United States would not advance the interests of Israel. Then I guess I would have to ask “Is there then not a difference between AIPAC and J-Street” because then according to Jenna’s logic AIPAC may not be advancing the interests of the United States contrary to many AIPAC’s members claims.
Fourthly another difference I would like to point out is I believe J-Street members don’t go around calling people “anti-semite” and “self-hating Jew” etc when they disagree with American policy towards Israel. Can we say that of AIPAC members.
Fifthly, you can read my response to her blogs in the archives and ask Jenna why I have to leave America and go live where people who think like me live ? I asked her whether she would have had the same suggestion toward her Jewish peers when they were discriminated in America. No answer.
Ms. Mittelman has a lot of question, but seems to provide no answers. Could u get some of these questions answered for me.
Thanks
Andy,
Thank you very much for your very kind offer! I also work in downtown Minneapolis, and would be very happy to meet for lunch sometime and talk. Please feel free to get in touch with me personally, and we can arrange a good time for both of us.
xper,
I did not realize I had to attach a full clarification, but for your sake, I will. I believe very strongly that it is crucial to get to a solution that would entail a national home for the Jewish people and a national home for the Palestinian people, as 2 separate states. This is usually referred to as “the 2-state solution.” As you very astutely pointed out, yes, as I have advocated in these pages before, I have actually come to believe that a 3-state solution, with 2 independent Palestinian states in the West Bank and in Gaza, would actually be a better solution for both of these populations, given their historical backgrounds and current situations. However, given that this is not a view likely to be adopted by the world at large, I certainly still believe that a 2-state solution is vastly better than nothing. I certainly hope I do not now have to preface every word that I say with this entire statement, just to satisfy you.
Aside from this, however, whatever my general opinions may be, I asked a question on this post. I do not feel that I have now given up all right to ask questions of anyone on any subject, however you may feel about me or my opinions generally. I do not feel that my question justified a generalized attack on me, or my general opinions. And given that you did not actually provide any actual answers to my questions, but simply proceeded to attack me, and all AIPAC supporters generally (which does not really get at the purpose of either organization, now does it?), I do not feel any need to continue to engage in this discussion any longer.
Andy, I look forward to hearing from you!
~Jenna
Jenna
Attack you ? Wait a minute, I am pointing out your own points like Jews living in Palestine, no 1967 borders, three state solution (where Palestinians have to ask for their land AFTER the solution).
I countered with a proposal Arabs and Israelis living in all of the lands as totally equal citizens. And now u claim I am attacking you. How so.
Any question you have posed I have answered. And you will not answer a basic question of what do you claim Israels borders are when u disown the 1967 border.
Are repeating your own views and your refusal to answer my counter questions (like equal status for Palestinians in Israel just like for you ask for Jewish people) an attack ?
Why don’t you stand up for your views ? Or have i broken some kind of unspoken code by asking inconvenient questions ?
Xper,
Don’t worry, I don’t have a problem with anything of mine you care to repeat (especially if you repeat it in context), and I do not find anything you say “inconvenient” in the least.
However, this post was about J Street, and was intented to be an announcement of an event they are hosting in our city.
It seems rude, and irrelevant, to me to engage in a random discussion of my general views on the Middle East in this forum. It is inconsiderate toward Mr. Andrew Luger, who posted the announcement, and it is inconsiderate toward his organization.
Asking questions about his organization, or their aims, or the event itself, seems reasonable. Discussing my views on the 1967 line as a viable potential border does not.
So once again, I will respectfully bow out of this discussion, and suggest that out of respect for the author of this post and his purpose with it, you do the same. You are free to disregard me, of course.
Sincerely,
~Jenna
My statement:
“Fourthly another difference I would like to point out is I believe J-Street members don’t go around calling people “anti-semite” and “self-hating Jew” etc when they disagree with American policy towards Israel. Can we say that of AIPAC members.”
Jennas response:
” but simply proceeded to attack me, and all AIPAC supporters generally (which does not really get at the purpose of either organization, now does it?), ”
Where is the attack on Jenna here ?
I am pointing out that AIPAC members (prominent ones not just some random memver) use terms like “anti-semite” and “self-hating Jew” against people who disagree with them. If that is an attack on you where are you referred to in that statement ?
Also if that is a false statement regarding some AIPAC members why don’t you be bold enough to accuse me of making false statements in this regard. Or would that be too difficult ?
Finally reading your posts in the archives one may have to gently remind you that you are quick to label people or organizations “anti-semites”. And yet you claim “attack” on people who counter your own views !!!
Jenna
You had some pointed questions of Mr. Luger of the
differences between AIPAC and JStreet.
I responded by pointing out the differences I see between your views and JStreets view AND the difference I see between AIPAC (especially the conduct of some of their prominent members). Even asked Mr. Luger to correct me if he disagreed.
Wonder why pointing out your views (or those AIPAC’s) when they contradict with those of JStreet’s are so offensive or irrelevant. After almost your entire post to Mr. Luger were along these lines.
After all this is a discussion on Israel and the peace process. Almost always we are, well and repeatedly, reminded by prominent AIPAC members on the prior statements and antecedents of its counter parties in such discussions. Wonder why is that so difficult when I point out your prior statements ? Are they so inconvenient currently ?