The New York Times published five letters about Israel yesterday. Two were pro-Israel. Two were not. And one was from Jeremy Ben-Ami, the executive director of J Street, which purports to speak for “most” Jews. Watch as the language he uses gives the impression that the Jewish community agrees with him in large numbers.
President Obama’s understanding of the link between resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and America’s own national security interests finds broad support among American Jews.
There’s a reason he states the above, and it’s not an honest one. See below.
American Jews are not a monolithic community represented by one voice.
Boilerplate. Since its inception, J Street would like you to believe that there is huge disagreement in the Jewish community about Israel. While the saying that you have two Jews and three opinions is correct, there is no such disagreement going on—except in the minds of the ultra-liberal Jews like the ones who advise President Obama that there are huge gaps in agreement in the Jewish community. It’s a self-referential made-up fact.
In fact, polling has consistently shown that a strong majority of American Jews understands the urgent need to achieve a two-state solution and supports this administration’s bold pursuit of that goal.
Yes, we do, and we have. This is nothing new. But Ben-Ami’s mendacity uses this fact to make it seem like AIPAC and other Jewish organizations do not support the two-state solution. This is a deliberate attempt to portray AIPAC and non-J Street organizations as against the two-state solution, which is a flat-out lie.
An analysis of the Obama administration’s calculus on Middle East policy should reflect that many in the Jewish community recognize that resolving the conflict is not only necessary to secure Israel’s future, but also critical to regional stability and American strategic interests.
It should, shoud it? Well, now we get to the meat of the matter: The J Street poll on which Ben-Ami is basing the statements in his letter. The thing is, J Street uses skewed questions to jigger the polls the way they want. Like this one:
Q.Below are some pairs of statements. After reading each pair, please mark whether the FIRST statement or the SECOND statement comes closer to your own view, even if neither is exactly right.
50% Middle East peace is a core American interest, and the United States should use assertive diplomacy to end the Palestinian- Israeli conflict.
OR
34% Only the parties themselves can make peace, and the United States should let the Palestinians and Israelis work out the conflict on their own.
Note that the above is not properly an either-or question. The first part states “Middle East peace is a core American interest.” The second part excludes that statement. But using the results of this skewed poll question, J Street can tout this poll as evidence that 50% of American Jews think that peace between the Israelis and Palestinians is a “core American interest”—which is exactly what Ben-Ami does in his letter to the Times.
The Times identifies Ben-Ami as the director of J Street. It does not, however, identify him as the liar who pretends to speak for the majority of Jews. He certainly doesn’t speak for me. But it definitely explains why the Obama administration thinks it can get away with throwing Israel under the bus.
Another point is that the phrase “two state solution” means different things to different people. There are those who believe that the “two state solution” means Jordan and Israel. There are those (like J-Street) who go along with the Arabs who believe that the “two state solution” means that a new Arab state must be carved out of Israel and the Jews can have (temporarily) whatever is less.
Not that the J-Street poll is very careful to avoid saying what the “two state solution” will mean.
Ooops, I meant There are those (like J-Street) who go along with the Arabs who believe that the “two state solution†means that a new Arab state must be carved out of Israel and the Jews can have (temporarily) whatever is left. However, the word “less” does fit with the Arba beliefs.
Even though I support a two-state solution, I don’t support the Obama administration’s “bold pursuit of that goal,” because to the current administration, boldly pursuing that goal seems to mean “picking fights with the current Israeli government” as opposed to pressuring the Palestinians to negotiate in good faith.
And remember that J-Street has a pollster who is involved with the group, who can give a patina of respectability to these mendacious “polls.”
Anyone who knows even the smallest amount about creating surveys knows that those sorts of questions – called “forced choice” – are completely useless as indicators of public opinion. They are sometimes used in personality-profile questionnaires, but even then they have to be carefully written to be truly opposite poles on a single dimension: e.g., “I love to go to parties where I don’t know many of the people” vs. “I prefer to go to parties where I know most of the people.” The example here does not offer cleanly opposite poles, because it contains multiple ideas in each potential answer. That’s another big no-no in questionnaire creation: the “double-barreled” question. In this case, you may agree that “Middle East peace is a core American interest” but NOT agree that “the United States should use assertive diplomacy to end the Palestinian- Israeli conflict” – or vice versa. Similarly, you may think that “Only the parties themselves can make peace” but disagree that the US should stay out of it entirely.
This is seriously the most amateurish question I’ve seen in a national poll that wasn’t obviously a “push-poll” (designed by marketing people to appear objective while feeding you information in favor of a particular candidate or product). My guess is that – as you’ve noted – this was a completely dishonest effort from start to finish.
One of the more interesting things about J Street is that this ostensibly pro-Israel group seems to have adopted the Palestinian narrative almost in toto: The Palestinians want and are ready for a genuine two-state solution; the settlements are a major barrier to achieving that; Ramat Shlomo can be considered a settlement, and now it echoes a rather vicious anti-Israel talking point, namely that Israel’s intransigence and obstinacy puts the lives of American troops in jeopardy.
I assume most readers of this weblog are well aware that J Street is a subject of substantial contributions by people who are in no way “pro-Israel and pro-peace.” The contribution isn’t the problem by itself–generally if people offer you money you should take it. But when asked why such people would direct substantial chunks of money to it, J Street’s usual response is that these people show they just want a two-state solution, etc. But you look at the websites for the organization those people belong to and you don’t see much acceptance of Israel’s right to exist; quite the opposite, as it happens.
A little experiment I’ve tried a few times: Read J Street’s public pronouncements and see if there’s anything in them that could not come from a pro-Palestinian group, albeit one that likes to present itself as moderate.
I think J Street is mostly a haven for people whose main loyalty is to progressivism but aren’t able to acknowledge that between today’s progressivism and genuine support for Israel there is a gulf. In any case, many years ago I echoed something Lezlek Kolakowski said in a different context: If that is left, then hell no I am not left and do not wish to be.”
And I still remember when you got the better of Andrew Sullivan about the booing of Wolfowitz at the pro-Israel rally April 15, 2002.
“In any case, many years ago I echoed something Lezlek Kolakowski said in a different context: If that is left, then hell no I am not left and do not wish to be,†my feelings exactly! If the left is so clearly wrong about the critical subject of Israel’s survival, then how can I trust ANYTHING else in their #$%&&^ song book!