Philadelphia Jewish Voice - J Street

Israel Consul speaks at J Street Evant

monsieur — Wed, 16 May 2012 00:36:46 GMT

On May 10, over 60 J Street activists met at the headquarters of the Philadelphia Federation of Jewish Agencies to

Where You Stand and What You Hear

Publisher — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 02:50:19 GMT

Thoughts Regarding Israel Advocacy

-- by Rabbi Neil Cooper

I have just returned from the Policy Conference of AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee). This year's convention was particularly exciting and provocative. Beyond the speakers of notoriety and prominence, however, I left the conference with a clearer and deeper sense of what it means to support and advocate for Israel. Indeed, that is the explicit mission of AIPAC. Simply put, AIPAC is about knowing where you stand.

More after the jump.

At the beginning of Parashat Bamidbar we read of the census of the People taken by Moses. In those first verses of the parasha, a familiar image is described. In counting the people, each person would stand with his family, each family with its clan and each clan with its tribe: "Ish 'al macahaneihu v'ish 'al diglo - each person in his place, standing behind his flag". In the Torah reading, there is a great deal of detail provided in describing the location of each family, clan and tribe and regarding how the Children of Israel oriented themselves around the "Ohel Mo'ed", the Tent of Meeting. There are similar scenes elsewhere in the Torah, describing the arrangement of those standing around the Tent of Meeting, for the purposes of a military census. Everyone has a place to stand, knows his place, and knows who stands at his side. The gathering for the purposes of the census is described in objective and dispassionate terms. Each person stands in his place. This sort of description contrasts starkly with the description of the original gathering of the Jewish people in the desert, when the people stood at the foot of Mount Sinai.

After arriving at the foot of Mount Sinai, following the crossing of the Red Sea, the people were instructed by Moses to prepare themselves: "VeHig'balta et ha'Am Saviv" . Here, there is no instruction given regarding where each person should stand. God simply instructed Moses to create a boundary beyond which the people must not go, "VaYityatzev BeTachtit HaHar". And so, the people amassed near, but not too close, to the foot of the mountain in order to listen to God's voice. According to the Midrash (Mechita) as God spoke, each person heard and understood that voice differently, each according to his or her intellect, strength and perspective. At Sinai, the people stood where they wanted, next to whomever they desired, each listening limited by their own capacity, outlook and according to their unique abilities and strengths. The experience at Sinai was a personal as well as a communal experience. Each person understood and perceived the message in his/her own, individual way.

The contrast between Bamidbar and Sinai is obvious. When the people stood around the Tent of Meeting, the description of that experience was clear and unambiguous. Each person knew where to stand and stood in that place. Perspective, intellect or strength did not affect where a person stood. At Sinai, on the other hand each person chose his own place to stand. Each person heard and experienced the Voice, the message and the mandate in his/her own individual way. These two experiences, Bamidbar and Sinai, create the tension and, at times the confusion, about the difference and significance between two notions, between where we stand, on the one hand, and what we hear and believe on the other. And today, nowhere is that distinction more important than in our support of and advocacy for Israel.

This year's AIPAC conference was a gathering of 10,000 individuals of all stripes. The highlight of the gathering took place on the last evening, Monday evening, as the members of the Congress of the United States were honored at the closing banquet. That festive dinner included 10,000 meals of which 3645 were served with the dressing on the side. But, the diversity in the room was far greater than that. Gathered that evening in a single room were:

Democrats and Republicans
Independents and Tea Partiers
Seniors, college and high school students
Men and Women
Whites, African-Americans, Asians and Latinos
Jews and Christians
Religious and Secular
Scholars, Professionals and regular folk

Fully two thirds of each house of Congress, as well as the leadership of each house, attended that gala dinner. And, what united this vast and diverse group was certainly not their outlook on social issues, their political persuasions, their gender, their religion or anything else. What united this group was the fact that everyone in that room stood with Israel as Americans. Uniting us was a common bond of love which we shared for the State of Israel. We were united in our support for our common goals, our commitment to freedom, democracy and human rights and for the fact that America and Israel share common enemies as well. The message of AIPAC, expressed over and over, loud and clear, was that to support America, its goals and values means to support Israel

At the AIPAC convention there was certainly no consensus among those in attendance regarding how to achieve the goals for Israel which we all support. The people at that convention do not share opinions regarding specific policies or specific positions of the Government of Israel, nor do we share answers to the most pressing issues before us, namely, how to proceed, which way to go, in order to achieve our common goals. Despite the fact that Pres.Obama spoke in language which some considered provocative, there was no unified opinion regarding the President's approach to the Middle East or regarding differences he may have with Prime Minister Netanyahu. What was emphasized by AIPAC was not position or policy but the fact that we all stand, shoulder to shoulder, with the citizens of Israel, without regard to specific policies or positions. In Israel, Israelis are firm, passionate and deeply divided regarding how to solve its problems and reach an equitable and just peace. Yet, when called on to defend Israel, Israelis stand together. Similarly, our focus at AIPAC is not to find consensus among the 10,000 attendees with respect to Israeli policy. Rather, our goal is to lend our support to the effort to defend Israel. Like Israelis, we stand with Israel.

Israel advocacy is not about the specifics of policies nor the positions adopted by individuals or political parties in Israel. Israel advocacy is not about whether or not one agrees with Pres. Obama or with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Israel advocacy is about knowing where we stand with respect to our support for Israel. Israel advocacy means standing with Israel. It means recognizing that the bonds between our countries must be continually strengthened and reaffirmed. It is about expressing gratitude to the United States of America for its unwavering support of Israel. It is about helping, as Americans, to assure that the support of Israel by the Congress of the United States is continually renewed and strengthened. In short, one might say that Israel advocacy is about standing and being counted in the way that our ancestors were counted as in Bamidbar. Where we stand on particular policies and positions, how we view and understand Israel's predicament and how we believe Israel can best achieve her goals, are personal, partisan issues. These are the kinds of positions and issues which are resolved individually. They are resolved according to one's perception of the world, the values and priorities which we cherish as individuals and according to the message and mandate as one understands it. Like those who stood at Sinai, each of us today hears and understands differently. And, as I see it, the American Jewish community has become confused over what it means to stand at Sinai and what it means to stand in Bamidbar. Specifically, advocating on behalf of Israel is about standing in Bamidbar, not about standing at Sinai. Well intentioned are groups on the left and the right in this country, that confusion is clearly evident.

Z Street is among the latest political groups emphasizing strong support for the policies of the State of Israel. But in their support, they have created litmus tests which one must pass in order to be considered a strong supporter of Israel. If one opposes certain policies of the government, if one disagrees with the way in which democracy is expressed, or not expressed in Israel's policies, one is considered beyond the pale. One who does not agree with the policies of the Israeli government is not only castigated by Z Street. One is considered to be not a supporter of Israel.

On the other side, J Street and its supporters believe that Israel would be best served by different policies regarding settlements, compromises and engagement. Their goal therefore, is to persuade and lobby the Congress of the United States to support policies different than those endorsed by the State of Israel and to pressure Israel and its government to support those policies and positions. This approach cannot be considered Israel advocacy.

In my opinion, individually and even among ourselves as Jews, we may dispute, disagree, and even denigrate the State of Israel. But in the end, support of Israel requires us to stand with the people and its democratically elected government. And so, when Z Street makes support of Israel a partisan issue, or when J Street tries to use American influence to pressure the government of Israel to change its policies, neither effort helps to increase consensus within the pro-Israel community. Each of these tactics is divisive, destructive and hurtful to Israel and many of her supporters. These organizations believe that standing with Israel is similar to standing at Sinai. I, however, believe that standing with Israel is like standing in Bamidbar. And for the security, safety and viability of the State of Israel to remain strong and unshakable, Israel needs all of us today standing with her, side to side, shoulder to shoulder as our ancestors did when they stood around the Tent of meeting. And, looking ahead to September and the UN vote regarding the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian State, Israel needs every one of her supporters to stand together with her.

We, in this country, who see ourselves as supporters and want to be advocates of Israel, must distinguish between Bamidbar and Sinai, between vision and approach, between principle and politics. Of course, each of us sees politics, policies and other subjective issues differently. And we see these things passionately from our individual perspectives. But to be an Israel advocate means, at times, that we must put our partisanship and personal perspectives aside in order to support a principle larger than any group or individual. That is the kind of support which AIPAC engenders. This, in my opinion, is what it means to stand with and be an advocate for Israel. This is what it means to support Israel's right to defend herself and her right to fight for survival. This is what it means to stand with Israel, shoulder to shoulder, in her seemingly endless struggle for safety, security and peace.

Ackerman Turns On J Street

Publisher — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:34:26 GMT

-- Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY 5)

After learning of J-Street's current public call for the Obama Administration to not veto a prospective UN Security Council resolution that, under the rubric of concern about settlement activity, would effectively and unjustly place the whole responsibility for the current impasse in the peace process on Israel, and — critically — would give fresh and powerful impetus to the effort to internationally isolate and delegitimize Israel, I've come to the conclusion that J-Street is not an organization with which I wish to be associated.

It is not Israel that is refusing to enter final status negotiations. It is not Israel that has refused again and again to make unilateral gestures of good faith (recall the hundreds of West Bank security checkpoints and roadblocks removed, and the 10 month settlement freeze). It is not Israel that is now trying to force the peace process back in to the same dead-end from which the Obama Administration has spent the past month trying to extract itself. But astonishingly, it is Israel that J-Street would put in the stocks in the public square.

The decision to endorse the Palestinian and Arab effort to condemn Israel in the UN Security Council, is not the choice of a concerned friend trying to help. It is rather the befuddled choice of an organization so open-minded about what constitutes support for Israel that its brains have fallen out.

America really does need a smart, credible, politically active organization that is as aggressively pro-peace as it is pro-Israel. Unfortunately, J-Street ain't it.

Congressman Gary Ackerman is the Ranking Democratic member of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia.

See J-Street's response after the jump.
-- J-Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami

J Street deeply regrets and objects to Rep. Gary Ackerman's statement today. It reflects a misunderstanding of J Street's position and of the UN Resolution in question.

J Street hopes "never to see the state of Israel publicly taken to task by the United Nations," as we said in our statement last week. In fact, our statement outlined how both Israel and the United States can help to avoid this issue coming to a vote at the United Nations - first, by Israel acting in its own self-interest to freeze settlement activity over the Green Line and, second, by the Obama Administration asserting "clear leadership in a serious effort to reach a two-state resolution of the conflict."

In the absence of either of these, it should not surprise Representative Ackerman or other friends of Israel that the issue is brought to the United Nations and the broader court of world opinion. Without a two-state solution to the conflict in the near term, pressure on Israel in international fora will increasingly be the norm and not the exception.

As supporters of Israel, the fact that we have reached this point pains us deeply, and so does the Congressman's misrepresentation of our position and of this resolution.

First, we do not "support" UN condemnation of Israel or endorse this resolution. We have urged the United States to consider withholding its veto from a resolution criticizing Israeli settlement activity - a resolution that closely tracks the policy of the United States under the last eight administrations.

Second, the resolution expresses support for a two-state solution and stresses the urgency of achieving a just, comprehensive and lasting peace. It calls on both parties to improve the situation on the ground, build confidence, and create conditions necessary for promoting the peace process. The resolution does not, as the Congressman implies, place the 'whole responsibility for the current impasse in the peace process' on Israel - and neither does J Street.

Third, the resolution calls on both parties to continue negotiations on final status issues.

The status quo in the Middle East is untenable. The future of Israel, as both a democracy and the homeland of the Jewish people, hangs in the balance without progress toward a two-state solution.

At a moment crying out for leadership, what's needed now is not the politics of yesterday that the Congressman offers with this attack, but the courage to put on the table the tough steps that are needed to end this conflict. We do Israel no favors by offering a pass from facing the consequences of counter-productive actions and policies.

J Street has never excused Palestinian intransigence or signaled that the Palestinian leadership need not meet its obligations as well. We have called on the leaders of all parties to help bring about a reasonable, negotiated two-state resolution to the conflict.

We urge Congressman Ackerman to take a closer look at J Street's statement, the UN Resolution and the situation on the ground. Saving the two-state solution will require leaders with courage and vision, both of which are sadly lacking in the Congressman's statement today.

Networking Central Presents J Street

Publisher — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 03:54:20 GMT

-- Harold Jacobs

J Street is the home and voice of pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans. It is an organization which provides voice for mainstream American Jews and others who, from their progressive and Jewish values, believe that a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is essential to Israel's survival as the national home of the Jewish people and a vibrant democracy. J Street advocates urgent American diplomatic and political leadership to achieve a two-state solution; it fosters broad debate on Israel and the Middles East in national politics and in the Jewish community.

More after the jump.
J Street represents Americans who support Israel in its desire for security as the Jewish homeland. J Street believes that a two-state solution is in the best interests of Israel, the Palestinian people and the United States.

J Street advocates vigorously in Congress, the Executive Branch, the media and the Jewish community to ensure that government officials and community leaders see the breadth and depth of support for its views on Middle East policy among voters in their states and districts and in the country at large.
Visit the J Street Website for more information or to sign up for their email list.

The J Street family consists three legally separate organizations.

J Street itself is a 501(c)(4) non-profit corporation, and a registered lobbying organization, which uses advocacy, organization and education to achieve its goals on Capitol Hill and with the Executive Branch. One of its activities has been to invite its listserve members to join in email letters urging policy positions to President Obama, Secretary Clinton and members of Congress, most recently a letter to Secretary Clinton urging action to close the gap resulting from the breakdown in the Israel-Palestinian negotiations.
J Street PAC is a political action committee. It endorses and raises money for federal office candidates who support active American leadership to achieve peace through the two-state solution.
J Stret Educational Fund, Inc. is a 501(c)(5) charitable organization. It educates targeted communities about the need for the two-state solution, It also uses the J Street listserve to circulate news of matters affecting progress and`stumbling blocks in the two-state solution. Locally, J Street Local, Philadelphia@jstreet.org organizes information events and spreads the J Street message.

Heated Debate Between Dershowitz Ben-Ami

Publisher — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 00:10:26 GMT

Dershowitz: J Street contributes to atmosphere of delegitimizing Israel
Ben-Ami: Dershowitz drives young, liberal Jews away from Israel

Sparks fly in an often contentious, always interesting evening of discussion centered on the question "Who Speaks For Israel?" featuring Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, recognized by many as America's most articulate centrist defender of the State of Israel, and Jeremy Ben-Ami, founding president of J Street, the relatively new Jewish lobby on Capitol Hill that seeks to bring US pressure to bear on Israel to move the Middle East peace process forward.

More after the jump.
From the start of the discussion, neither Dershowitz nor Ben-Ami is timid in expressing criticism of the other. The evening is a marked contrast from an earlier debate the two participated in at New York's 92nd Street Y, when moderator Elliot Spitzer tried to steer the conversation toward areas of agreement. In this exchange, Shalom TV President Mark S. Golub helps the speakers clarify the ways in which they support Israel from very different perspectives.

Although Ben-Ami begins the discussion by saying that both the Israelis and the Palestinians have contributed to a lack of peace in the Middle East, and "there is more than enough blame to go around; both sides have committed their fair share of errors," the J Street leader refuses to say that he would tell college students that "Israel is not the problem."

Citing J Street's refusal to condemn the Goldstone Report, its secretly taking money from George Soros, and its criticizing Israel's human rights record out of context, Dershowitz contends that J Street adds to current efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel and permits college students to think of Israel as an apartheid or Nazi nation.

"All human rights is comparative," insists Dershowitz. "Nobody is better than a C+ or B-. But no country in modern history has had a better human rights record faced with comparable threats than the nation of Israel. Not the United States, not Great Britain, not France. I will not let Israel be a scapegoat for divestment, for boycotts, for delegitimization, for demonization, for being singled out as human rights violators--and J Street contributes to that atmosphere."

Dershowitz also accuses J Street of failing to cite the positives in Israel's human rights record, pointing to the sterling record of Israel's Supreme Court.

"Let's look at Israel's Supreme Court compared to the United States' Supreme Court," says Dershowitz. "I would trade the two supreme courts in thirty seconds. The Israeli Supreme Court is much more sensitive to civil rights than the US Supreme Court. You wouldn't know that listening to J Street."

Ben-Ami counters with a claim that Dershowitz is distorting J Street's nuanced message and makes a point of saying he believes one of the travesties of the United Nations is its obsession with Israel's human rights record vis-a-vis the rest of the world. Ben-Ami also blames Dershowitz for pushing young people away from Israel by labeling anyone who dares to disagree with Israel as being anti-Israel or a self-hating Jew.

"You, and [your] manner of advocacy, are part of the problem, which is why so many younger, liberal Jews are walking away from Israel. You are creating an atmosphere where it is very difficult for us to feel comfortable coming forward and discussing very difficult and very troubling issues."

One of the most dramatic moments occurs when Dershowitz suddenly reveals large blowups of frames from a J Street video grouping him with Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh in the "Chorus of No" on the two-state solution, and in opposition to President Obama, General Petraeus, Secretary of State Clinton, and the "Chorus of Yes."

"Jeremy knows I've been opposed to the settlements since when he was still in diapers," says Dershowitz as he asks for an apology from Ben-Ami.

Ben-Ami responds by saying Dershowitz owes him an apology for saying that J Street had "gone over to the dark side" in a piece Dershowitz wrote for the Huffington Post. In the end, neither man apologizes to the other.

In a most telling interchange, Dershowitz declares, "I am J Street's nightmare because I am a liberal, Democratic Jew who strongly opposes the settlements, who strongly favors a two-state solution, who supports Obama, who supports Hillary Clinton, who supports Petraeus; but who does not support J Street. You have to create the illusion that anyone who opposes J Street is a member of the right and the Sarah Palin/Rush Limbaugh group. You can't explain me, Irwin Cotler, Elie Wiesel--who agree with your positions but who don't agree with the fact that you always emphasize your criticism of Israel and not your support of Israel; that you have many members of your organization who are virulently anti-Israel."

Ben-Ami: Name one! You always say we have many members of our group who are virulently anti-Israel. Name one.

Dershowitz: Students at Berkeley who refuse to include "pro-Israel" in their name.

Ben-Ami: That makes then virulently anti-Israel?

Dershowitz: Absolutely. Why would you not have pro-Israel in your name?

Ben-Ami: This is why we view the way in which you advocate for Israel as "the nightmare" for J Street. It is true. It is because people like you, and the way in which you advocate, act as a chilling factor for people to get involved with Israel in the first place.

The two men also disagree on Iran. Ben-Ami argues that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would diminish Iran's strength and its desire to develop nuclear weapons. Dershowitz strongly disagrees and contends that Ben-Ami is positioning Israel to take the blame if Iran develops nuclear capability.

Dershowitz is especially critical of J Street's failure to condemn the Goldstone Report even though Ben-Ami confirms that he does not believe its conclusions which charge Israel with purposely plotting to kill civilians in Gaza and contends there is no proof that Hamas used human shields or fired from civilian areas.

"You know why you didn't criticize the Goldstone Report?" asks Dershowitz rhetorically. "Because too many of your members would have quit--because [J Street] members voted [in favor of] the Goldstone Report without reading it!"

Ben-Ami responds that Dershowitz distorts J Street's position, pointing out that J Street criticized the report as biased and urged the US to oppose any acceptance of the Goldstone Report in the UN Security Council. Ben-Ami also claims that the suggestion that J Street facilitated a meeting between Goldstone and members of Congress is a media lie perpetrated by a biased Washington Times.

Explaining J Street's lobbying philosophy, Ben Ami says, "We are American citizens and we have a right to influence American policy, especially in matters regarding Israel, because, as Jews, we have a stake in what happens in that country. We have a right to tell Israel the truth--that the path Israel is on is leading it off a cliff and is not securing the Israeli future as a Jewish and democratic home. And it is the most Zionist thing we can do."

Dershowitz summarizes his position by saying, "Criticize Israel. But tell college students both sides of the equation. Don't let them come away with the impression that Israel is a unique human rights violator. Put it in context--that's all I ask you to do."

The Dershowitz/Ben-Ami debate was sponsored by the Harold Hoffman Memorial Lecture, a free annual event open to the public at Temple Beth El in Stamford, Connecticut. This year the event drew an overflow crowd of more than 1,100 people who were split in their support of Dershowitz and Ben-Ami.

The entire debate will begin airing for four weeks on Shalom TV as free Video On Demand, the Jewish network available on cable systems throughout the United States and in Canada. The program may also be viewed online by clicking here, or at http://www.shalomtv.com under "Watch Complete Programs."