After its first annual convention last week, J-Street stands exposed as left wing organization that is very attractive to critics of Israel. So its leaders went to the New York Times, presented their talking points and got reporters Neil Lewis and Mark Landler to write a sympathetic press release Moderate in America’s Jewish Lobby Causes a Stir

Did I get the headline correct? J-Street is moderate? Let me quote from two sources who are not as far to right as I am. First David Bernstein:

Opposing the war in Gaza put JStreet far outside the mainstream of Jewish opinion in Israel (and the U.S., for that matter); even the left-wing Meretz party supported the war, as did over 90% of the Jewish Israeli public. So JStreet is respositioning itself from left of Meretz to right of Labor?

and Yaacov Lozowick:

In spite of the difference between them, they are both pro-Israel. What stuck me was the degree of their disconnect (both) from the Israeli reality. Certainly Yglesias, and probably also Chiat, would fit into the Meretz part of the Israeli political spectrum – yet there’s a reason Meretz hovers on the edge of political extinction these days. I’m not saying the Meretz position is illegitimate – but it does have to deal with a whole set of facts known to every Israeli; most deal by abandoning the Meretz positions, and a small number deal and manage to maintain their positions. These two fine young men – I’m not being facetious – are engaged in a conversation about Israel that doesn’t relate to the world Israelis live in.

No matter how many times Jeremy Ben Ami and his associates say “we’re moderate” the truth is that they are way out of the mainstream of the Israeli political spectrum. They also are not in the mainstream of American Jewish politics. In fact most of the people who associate with J-Street’s positions are in fact anti-Zionists and hostile to Israel as the J-Street bloggers panel showed. (h/t Israel Matzav)

Here’s the meat of the NYT’s report:

J Street has only a small fraction of the resources and membership of more established pro-Israel groups, like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and it remains unclear how potent it will be in presenting itself as an alternative. Nonetheless, it has had great success in quickly becoming a major reference point in the complicated debate over President Obama’s Middle East policy as well as the more emotional issue of the appropriate role for American Jews in supporting Israel.

While opinions in the Jewish community have never been uniform or monolithic, several analysts, elected officials and pollsters said the debate over Mr. Obama’s approach to Israel and its neighbors has sharpened boundaries between those who strongly support him and those who have grown more wary.

J Street has tried to position itself as a counterweight to groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, which J Street supporters say require the United States to support the Israeli government too reflexively.

This sounds a lot more like J-Street’s talking points. Since when does an objective news report use the phrase “it has had great success?”

The reason J-Street has had great success in getting its message out is because it is 1) well funded 2) politically connected and 3) can find sympathetic reporters to reprint their main talking points.

Landler and Lewis also write:

The issue of how much any American administration should press an Israeli government to make concessions for peace is at the heart of delicate and long-unresolved questions among American Jews. At the least, say the traditional supporters of Israel, any disagreements should not be aired publicly.

I think that debate’s been over for some 30 years at least. No what’s at issue is how pressure on Israel will help the cause of peace, when there’s no reciprocal pressure on the Arabs. Or how further Israeli concessions will further the cause of peace, when Israeli concessions over the past 16 years have not led to any softening of the Palestinian position.

Towards the end of the article, one more bit of support is brought for J-Street:

Jim Gerstein, one of J Street’s founders, said his research and other polls found that most American Jews were uncomfortable with Israel’s settlement policy. But he said Orthodox Jews generally did support it.

Glad that the reporters acknowledged that Gerstein is affiliated with J-Street, but as Noah Pollak observed, this means:

So J Street not only commissions polls—it writes the questions, conducts them, analyzes the results, and then carries out promotional campaigns with the findings. If you were wondering how it was possible that J Street could repeatedly produce “polling data” that almost perfectly complements the group’s political agenda, now we have one important clue.

Given how battered Jeremy Ben Ami must have felt after his convention was over, he must feel relieved that there were two New York Times reporters he could count on to help rehabilitate his organization’s image.

UPDATE: One last thing. The Times fails to report one of the more bewildering aspects of J-Street’s “pro-Israel” approach. Its university outreach arm, decided to drop “pro-Israel” from its self description. I know that the J-Street leaders have since said that they are undoubtedly “pro-Israel,” but really here is an example of actions speaking louder than words. J-Street U knows that its pool of potential recruits is very small among those who consider themselves pro-Israel. That speaks volumes about where J-Street actually stands in the pro-Israel constellation. In a different galaxy altogether.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Israel files complaint with UN; complaint goes into circular file. Shyeah, like the UN is going to do something about Lebanese terrorists launching katyushas into Israel. It’s not like UNIFIL is doing anything to stop Hezbullah from building stockpiles of rockets in south Lebanon, even when the stockpiles blow up and UNIFIL can’t pretend they don’t exist anymore. The fact that UNIFIL and the Lebanese army actually found four unfired katyushas is astonishing, as they can’t seem to find their asses with either hand when it comes to Hezbullah arms and munitions.

The Goldstone dividends: Over 1,500 lawsuits are being filed by Gazans over damages from Cast Lead. Yeah, good luck with that. Israeli courts are not the UN. You have to go by actual laws in order to say that the IDF violated them. I anticipate about 1,500 dismissals.

Turkey and Iran: Together again for the very first time. Turkey’s prime minister goes to Iran, stands smiling while Ahmadinejad denounces “the Zionist regime” yet again. Oh, yeah. The honeymoon with Israel is over, and the Islamists have won. Then there’s that little bit about Erdogan saying that Avigdor Lieberman told him he wanted to nuke the Palestinians. I call bullshit on that, but of course, the Guardian printed it anyway.

J-Street is like Kadima like this blog is like J-Street: Shyeah, pull the other leg, Ben-Ami. Gawd. You are such a loser. Your student arm is dropping the words “pro-Israel” to keep people from thinking that, gee, they’re pro-Israel. Yeah, that’s just like Kadima, the party that Ariel Sharon built to keep himself in power long enough to disengage from Gaza (and that worked out so well, too). Sure. Uh-huh. In Bizarro World, maybe.

I was debating with Jon Chait at a J Street panel this morning on the subject of “what does it mean to be pro-Israel?” As expected, we disagreed on a number of points, most of which I was right on and he was wrong on. But one thing he said in his opening remarks that I really disagreed with was that there was an ambiguity running through the J Street constituency as to whether the group was or should be pro-Israel at all.

That just struck me as kind of nuts. My J Street button said “Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace.” It’s not a subtle aspect of the messaging. But when we moved to the Q&A time it became clear that a number of people in the audience really were quite uncomfortable self-defining as “pro-Israel” in any sense and that others are uncomfortable with the basic Zionist concept of a Jewish national state. I was, of course, aware that those views existed but it had seemed to me that it was clear that that wasn’t what J Street is there to advocate for. Apparently, though, it wasn’t clear to everyone.

So Yglesias was surprised that folks who came to J-Street’s conference didn’t want to be considered pro-Israel? Why would that be? Here’s Spencer Ackerman’s view on the topic:

I don’t really have any interest in affixing a label to people that they don’t embrace themselves. But I think the answer is that it would be shortsighted to view them outside the “pro-Israel” community. If Israel doesn’t get out of the West Bank soon, demographic realities will force Israel to make the most painful existential choice of its life: whether to abandon Jewish democracy or whether to abandon Jewish statehood in favor of a binational homeland. Both of these options, in fundamental ways, represent the end of Israel. Not from an Iranian nuclear weapon. Not from a super-empowered Palestinian intifada. But from political failure and international diplomatic failure, the end of Israel can, actually, be achieved.

In other words, then, it is pro-Israel to demand that Israel make concessions to an enemy who still denies its right to exist. But this is what’s really problematic with Ackerman’s formulation: Israel’s legitimacy rests on the ability of the Palestinians to create a state. Worse, there seems to be no test for the legitimacy of Palestine. For Ackerman the creation of an Islamist Palestine would not have to answer the same “existential” question as Israel would. In other words Israel’s legitimacy would be defined by its enemies; Palestine’s legitimacy is a given.

Perhaps Ackerman would have an argument twenty years ago, but since Israel has abandoned Gaza and the major cities of Judea and Samaria, there is no demographic threat. There is only a Palestinian failure to create a state. Ackerman prefers to put an impossible onus on Israel. That’s not “pro-Israel” by any definition.

In Yglesias at JStreet David Bernstein writes:

I perfectly understand the difficulty that one could have with these ideas, because when in my twenties, I remember arguing with members of the older generation that they were too paranoid about anti-Semitism, that Israel needs to be much more flexible to achieve a peace accord, and that the murderous rhetoric about Israel emanating from the Arab world and elsewhere would go away once the parties all recognized their rational self-interest and came to a peace deal. It took many years, and, among other things, an intifada that involved a remarkable number of “progressive” Western intellectuals apologizing for, or even justifying, blowing up kids in pizza parlors in response to a serious peace offer from Israel, and a series of modern-day blood libels in Europe during Operation Defensive Shield in 2002 to realize that I had been extremely naive. It’s not that I’ve given up hope; but I learned to take what seemed to a younger me like pure craziness that couldn’t possibly be serious-such as the continuing popularity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the Muslim world-very seriously.

This is an excellent synopsis of the past decade. And yet, there are those who don’t accept it. Yes the J-Street crowd pretends that none of this happens and that Israel is at the heart of the failure to achieve peace in the Middle East. Never mind, for example, that the Palestinians still don’t accept a Jewish right to a state.

Bernstein’s generous to the J-Streeter’s and their fellow travelers. He doesn’t think that they are anti-Israel. I don’t see how someone could witness the events in the Middle East since 2000 and still put the onus of compromise on Israel and still be pro-Israel.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Second, from approximately 1988 to Fall 2000, I held views on the Arab-Israeli conflict that would put me comfortably in the mainstream of the JStreeters. Events in the Summer and Fall of 2000 led me to change my views, but I understand where many JStreeters are coming from, and I don’t think their views should be dismissed as “anti-Israel.”

This is significant. In the fall of 2000, the policies advocated by the Israeli peace camp were shown – by events – to be mistaken. Prof. Bernstein, when he witnessed the same events – the so-called “Aqsa intifada, Hezbollah’s cross border attack – and adjusted his views accordingly. The J-Street folks did not and now still believe that the only the thing that prevents peace in the Middle East is Israeli intransigence. If after 2000, someone still figures that Israel is mostly or even largely to blame for the failure of the peace process, he is no friend of Israel.

And even if I weren’t calling J-Street “anti-Israel,” the organization has a knack for demonstrating its true leanings. Yesterday at the supposedly unaffiliated J-Street bloggers panel, a pro-Israel attendee was thrown out by security. So much for J-Street’s claim that it is looking for debate.

Stavis, a paid conference attendee (after all, Jeremy Ben-Ami stated that they welcome those who disagree), was in the back of the room filming (as were many others). Some time in, apparently recognizing a member of his enemies list, Silverstein springs up and can be seen in the video crossing the room to get security. He then approaches Stavis, who is doing nothing and causing no disruption whatsoever, to tell him security is going to kick him out.

He is then approached by a J Street official, Amy Spitalnick, Press and New Media Associate, who can be heard telling him he has to leave. The video ends at that point as, Stavis tells me, she grabbed at the camera.

And while J-Street (or specifically Jeremy Ben Ami) denied any connection between the organization and the bloggers’ panel, Michael Goldfarb observed:

The “independent” blogger panel at J Street’s conference can only be described as clownish. The panel consisted mostly of crackpots and self-described anti-Zionists and “one-staters” (J Street director Jeremy Ben-Ami calls the one-state solution a “nightmare,” but it seems to be the dream of many of the organization’s supporters). Though J Street tried to distance itself from the panel by describing it as an “unofficial” and “independent” event, the bloggers used one of the rooms otherwise reserved for conference events, a podium in the front had a J Street placard on it, and a J Street banner hung on the back wall of the room.

And if it wasn’t enough that J-Street was promoting a group of unapologetic anti-Zionists, one of the organizations affiliates has decided that it will officially do away with the “pro-Israel” label. (h/t Elder of Ziyon)

“We don’t want to isolate people because they don’t feel quite so comfortable with ‘pro-Israel,’ so we say ‘pro-peace,’” said American University junior Lauren Barr of the “J Street U” slogan, “but behind that is ‘pro-Israel.’”

Barr, secretary of the J Street U student board that decided the slogan’s terminology, explained that on campus, “people feel alienated when the conversation revolves around a connection to Israel only, because people feel connected to Palestine, people feel connected to social justice, people feel connected to the Middle East.”

Martin Peretz wonders about the possible political repercussions J-Street will suffer.

Well, they did invite J Street, and now they are stuck with the damage. The J Streeters went around identifying themselves as Obama’s people in the crowd. I suppose that was good for them. But it was not good for Obama. The fact is that, by this past weekend, when J-Street launched its D.C. fest, it was already seen in the public mind as a bunch of nut cases and very much anti-Israel in the very substantive sense. It was callous about Iran’s nuclear threat to Israel, was against sanctions, supported negotiations with Hamas, which even the E.U. disdained. Moreover, it refuses to recognize that one obstacle to a two-state solution is that neither the Palestinians nor the other Arabs can even contemplate security guarantees to Israel.

Mr. President: You courted a friend. Now you have him. Woe is you.

My advice to J-Street, is: if you still insist that Israel is largely or mainly at fault for the failure of the Middle East peace process, if you give a platform to an anti-Zionist group and if you feel that calling yourself “pro-Israel” will hinder your recruitment efforts, you are anti-Israel. It’s your label. Wear it proudly.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

J-Street is different. Its viability is dependent on its relevance. But it has no real constituency and it is premised on a phony belief that AIPAC is “too right wing.” But a few rich, self-promoting and politically connected Jews got together and figured that they were too important to be ignored and called themselves a “pro-Israel, pro-peace” alternative to AIPAC. They got some sympathetic mentions in newspapers and but as a commenter at Jeffrey Goldberg’s blog noted:

Who, of the Israeli electorate, does J-Street represent? They occasionally find themselves agreeing with Meretz, representing the leftmost 3% of all Jewish voters, but who did they represent when they spoke out against Cast Lead, a defensive war that even Meretz was in favor of?

In other words J-Street has no real constituency in Israel. And while Jews, in general, approve of President Obama’s handling of the Middle East, I doubt that, position by position they’d much approved of J-Street’s. Unless J-Street designed the polls themselves.

So with J-Street bleeding legislators and rejected by the Israeli ambassador, what does J-Street leader, Jeremy Ben Ami do? He finds another sympathetic journalist to whine to, in this case, Dan Eggen of the Washington Post who writes in Israel conference to open amid controversy:

J Street, an advocacy and lobbying firm created 18 months ago, is holding its first annual conference beginning Sunday, with participation from about 150 Democratic members of Congress, many current and former Israeli politicians and U.S. national security adviser James L. Jones, who will be giving a keynote speech Tuesday.

But the self-described “pro-Israel, pro-peace” group has been rebuffed in its attempts to get Israel’s U.S. ambassador, Michael Oren, to speak at the gathering. In a statement explaining the refusal, the Israeli Embassy accused J Street of endorsing policies that “could impair Israel’s interests.”

I suppose that this report is a bit of self-promotion on Ben Ami’s part. It allows him to complain for example:

He said the group has been the victim of “thuggish smears” by conservatives who favor more hawkish policies in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, and said he had hoped that Oren would have accepted an invitation to speak at the conference.

“I am extremely disappointed that this is the reaction of the government of Israel to an organization that is looking to expand the base of support in this country for Israel and is deeply concerned about its future,” Ben-Ami said.

“Thuggish smears?” Look, were the reports accurate?

Eggen also informs us:

The organization also abruptly canceled plans for a “poetry slam” at the event after conservative activists and bloggers unearthed writings by two participants that compared the suffering of Holocaust victims to that of Palestinians in Israel’s occupied territories.

and

Some conservatives have also criticized J Street for accepting donations from individuals connected to organizations doing Palestinian and Iranian advocacy work. In addition, conservatives have attacked the conference for including Salam al-Marayati, founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, who apologized in 2001 for suggesting on a radio show that Israel should be considered a suspect in the Sept. 11 attacks.

The tone of the article, crediting (or blaming) “conservatives” with the criticisms of J-Street blunts the fact that these two events alone would put off most American Jews – if they knew about them. I also am baffled by framing al-Marayati’s rant in terms of his “apology.” Most people aren’t politically involved but they’d reasonably conclude that an organization that is willing to give a platform to someone who would blame Israel for 9/11 or compare Israel to Nazi Germany is not exactly pro-Israel. This isn’t a matter of conservative or liberal; it’s just common sense.

Eggen gets an excellent quote from Roberta Seid of Stand With Us:

Roberta Seid, research and education director for StandWithUs, said she views J Street as “outside the mainstream,” and that broad support for Obama among American Jews does not mean agreement with the administration’s Israel policy.

“American Jews seem to love Obama; American Jews are liberal,” Seid said. “But they are much firmer in their support of Israel and opposed to viewing the conflict as equally Israel’s fault. I think they draw the line there.”

Incidentally, Jeffrey Goldberg also gave Ben Ami the opportunity to whine. Goldberg generously linked to my account of J-Street’s blogging panel, asked him about it:

JG: On another subject, you’re giving some space at your conference to a group of bloggers who range from the anti-Zionist Max Blumenthal to the anti-Zionist Helena Cobban.

JB: There’s a lunch. They’ve asked us that, since there is a lunch, can we have a room where we who are bloggers on this issue can sit and talk to each other? I mean, give me a break, I’m not giving them any approval whatsoever, and there’s no sanction to their beliefs. I’m just saying, sure, there are seven free rooms on the floor, use one. I’m not going to say, “No you can’t eat lunch together.” I mean really.

So Ben Ami minimizes this “lunch.” Fine.Ben Ami concludes:

I believe that we are at the center. The Marty Peretzes and the Michael Goldfarbs and the Lenny Ben-Davids are on the right, to the far right, and there are people to our left, and we are in the middle trying to put forward a thoughtful, moderate, mainstream point of view about how to save Israel as a Jewish home.

It’s hogwash, of course. J-Street is pretty far to the left as it refuses to acknowledge the many concessions Israel has made over the past 16 years. But even if we take him at his word. Notice how casually he dismisses someone like Martin Peretz, who, if anything, is close in ideology to the Labor party of Israel. Is someone like Peretz really “to the far right?”

But even if we eschew political labels, what would Jeremy Ben Ami answer if he were asked who his own view coincided with more: Martin Peretz or Helena Cobban? He never explicitly makes the choice, but I think you can draw a reasonable conclusion from the interview that he identifies more with Cobban, the anti-Zionist, Hamas booster, than with the Zionist, Peretz. I do not understand how people could read Eggen’s article or Goldberg’s interview and believe that J-Street could be classified as “pro-Israel.”

For more J-Street reading please check out JoshuaPundit and the Hashmonean.

Crossposted at Soccer Dad.

Such efforts to delegitimize the organization appear to have failed, with 160 congressional lawmakers endorsing its conference. The slate of scheduled speakers includes several former top Israeli officials.

In addition, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, who leads the country’s largest synagogue movement, the Union for Reform Judaism, is co-chairing the main event — a town hall meeting on Israel’s relationship with American Jews. U.S. Reps. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), leaders in Congress’ unofficial Jewish caucus and close to President Obama, are taking part in a panel that examines how one to expand the definition of “pro-Israel” on the Hill.

Most notable, perhaps, is the participation of Yoffie, who tussled earlier this year with J Street over its equivocation over naming Hamas as the villain in Israel’s Gaza war. He told JTA that J Street’s views deserve a hearing in the wider Jewish community, and praised the group for doing more than many more established groups to promote the Israeli position of a two-state solution.

(Wexler, by the way, is resigning his seat – via memeorandum. So Maryland will have one less Democratic congressman.)

But there’s one big fish that J-Street has yet to land – Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren. J-Street’s executive director, Jeremy Ben Ami wrote an open letter to Amb. Oren in the Jerusalem Post.

MR. AMBASSADOR, what J Street shares in common with you far outweighs that on which we disagree. J Street, on behalf of the many Jewish Americans who share our views, urges you to join us as we discuss, debate and – in the best tradition of the Jewish people – argue over how best to ensure the health, safety and vibrancy of the Jewish people and of Israel for generations to come.

Your attendance – even to clarify some of our areas of disagreement – will be respectfully welcomed, and we promise you an open hearing as we hope and expect you will welcome us at the embassy one day to present our views and opinions in that same spirit.

Despite Ben Ami’s friendly tone, this is an invitation that the ambassador ought to decline. When Israel was fighting Hamas earlier this year, J-Street was opposed the war. If one of the sessions at the J-Street conference will be how to expand the definition of “pro-Israel,” the organization must be well aware that it’s current stance, by any reasonable standard, is anti-Israel. As such Ambassador Oren ought to stay away rather than grant J-Street recognition by his appearance.

(I’d add that in addition to being anti-Israel, isn’t strongly Jewish in its makeup either.)

In case one remains unconvinced of where J-Street stands, recall its founding. It was founded by – among others – George Soros (who is no longer associated with the group). who decried the excessive influence of the “Israel Lobby” on American politics.

Michael Oren is far smarter and more persuasive than I am. Perhaps he will go to the conference and rebuke his hosts. That would be an interesting approach.

Otherwise Oren ought not to go. J-Street’s advocacy for peace immediately when peace is not at hand is a recipe for disaster. Official recognition of the organization by the Israeli government will only strengthen its hand.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

The average age of the dozen or so staff members is about 30. Ben-Ami speaks for, and to, this post-Holocaust generation. “They’re all intermarried,” he says. “They’re all doing Buddhist seders.”

And of course, this follows logically:

They are, he adds, baffled by the notion of “Israel as the place you can always count on when they come to get you.”

So we have Jews that aren’t very Jewish running a pro-Israel lobby group that isn’t very pro-Israel. It makes a crazy kind of sense. But of course, it’s also an influential lobby that isn’t very influential. And a representative group that isn’t really representative.

But if you count J-Street as the Buddhist, intermarrying, Arab-supported segment of the Israel Lobby, it all works.

(Celebrating Passover with idolatry. Wow. That’s a new low.)

Q. How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?
A. Only one, but the light bulb really has to want to change.

In defense of their stance on Hamas, J-Street writes (h/t Jennifer Rubin):

We also recognize, however, that one makes peace with one’s enemies not one’s friends. Hamas is a political movement that has an important and significant base of support within Palestinian society and politics. Ultimately, a political resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will require Palestinian political reconciliation and we support efforts by third parties to achieve reconciliation and a unity government, whose officials will work within a diplomatic process to achieve an acceptable two-state solution.

That platitude about making peace with one’s enemies is a variation on a statement made by Yitzchak Rabin, and it is highly misleading. You make with your enemies when those enemies are willing to accept you. But if your enemy still maintains a hostile stance, no amount of concessions or recognition are going to lead to peace. This was the fallacy as Yasser Arafat pronounced his support for peace in English to international audiences and simultaneously encouraged his people to reject Israel and embrace terror. Hamas hasn’t even bothered to soften its stance to the rest of the world. Other than certain limited goals, Hamas has earned the right to be shunned.

But what’s disturbing here, is that J-Street – in defending itself no less – puts Palestinian reconciliation was a necessary condition for peace. That means encouraging the superficially moderate Fatah to give the implacable terrorists of Hamas a veto over the peace process. J-Street isn’t just anti-Israel, it’s anti-peace too!

J-Street can claim that it is not anti-Israel, but if after the Israeli withdrawals in 1995 were followed by a wave of terror in 1996; after the Camp David talks were followed by the “Aqsa intifada”; after Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon was followed by the strengthening of Hezbollah and the threat to northern Israel and after Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza was followed by the strengthening of Hamas and the threat to southern Israel, it’s impossible to argue that what the peace process needs is more American pressure on Israel rather than an Arab change of heart. But it’s pressure on Israel that J-Street advocates. So yes, given the historical record of Israeli concessions and the belligerent response to them, advocating for American pressure for future concessions is objectively anti-Israel.

It’s also interesting that J-Street has adopted the style of its nemesis, AIPAC by presenting its defense in the form of “Myths and Facts.” Of course when the organization itself becomes the focus of its activism – as is the case now with J-Street – it no longer truly advocates anything, it’s simply self absorbed. Yes, perhaps it is time to pack it in.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

One is Malcolm Hoenlein’s, and he’s said this publicly, that he feels that history shows us that progress is made on the peace front when Israel and the U.S. are in lockstep and there’s no daylight between them on their position publicly. And the president said ‘With all due respect, I would disagree. For eight years under the prior administration, there was no daylight between the two sides and there was no progress on the peace front, and no hard decisions were confronted, no progress was made.’ He very politely, but very clearly, disagrees with the notion that there shouldn’t be a public space between the Israeli government’s and the U.S. government’s position. I think that’s a very important point.

And the second example would be a question of tone, where there are those in the room who would say that the president has been one-sided in his demands. And that he is only asking things of Israel, and the president really again pushed back, very calmly but firmly, and said no, that he has on every occasion, where he has spoken out publicly, and where the [U.S.] government has taken a position, made it clear that there are obligations and steps that must be taken by Israel, and obligations and steps that must be taken by Palestinians and the broader Arab community. If we’re going to make progress, both sides have to live up to commitments and both sides have to take some steps.

Except that President Obama has been very clear and specific about what he demands of Israel – plus he has reversed American policy regarding the Middle East. He has been rather general about what he asks of the Palestinians and the Arab world. And he hasn’t pushed those requests very hard either.

Martin Peretz, an Obama supporter on most other matters dissents (via memeorandum):

Frankly, I am sick and tired of President Obama’s eldering–more accurately, hectoring–Israel’s leaders. It is, after all, they whose country is the target of an armed and ideological cyclone that Obama has done precious little to ease. He brought nothing back from Riyadh and Cairo, absolutely nothing except the conviction of the Arab leaders that they need do nothing but sit and wait until the president squeezes one concession after another out of Jerusalem. Oops, I apologize. Maybe I should still say Tel Aviv. In any case, waiting is exactly what they are doing. Palestinian President Abbas has prided himself in doing just that.

In a similar vein Bill Kristol writes:

According to the article, Obama told Jewish leaders at the White House yesterday that Israel would need “to engage in serious self-reflection.”

“Serious self-reflection!” It’s really good that Barack Obama is reminding the leaders and people of Israel to engage in that. I hope they’re up to it. After all, what do Israelis know about reflecting on, and living with, the life and death consequences of political decisions? What do Bibi Netanyahu and Ehud Barak and Moshe Ya’alon — either as individuals or as leaders — know about war and peace? These are guys — and the Israelis are a people — who just coast along, taking an easy path, never debating, never thinking, never questioning, never second-guessing…and never making or asking their fellow citizens to make sacrifices.

It’s kind of odd that President Obama would on the one hand claim that it’s a misperception that he is exerting undue pressure on Israel and on the other claim that it’s good that there are differences (or “daylight”) between Israel and the United States. And this is a point that the Orthodox Union made in its statement about the meeting.

However, while the President’s acknowledgment of this perception gap is encouraging, the Orthodox Union remains deeply troubled by the President’s underlying approach – which is to have the U.S. play an “evenhanded” role. The Orthodox Union asks our President to recognize that there are no moral equivalencies between Israel, which has acted time and again to defend itself while actively seeking peace, and those who reject Israel’s legitimacy and make war against her. We look to the United States to be Israel’s friend in a world of enemies and we support the view, expressed to the President in our meeting, that while allies may of course disagree on specifics, there ought not be significant “daylight” between the United States and Israel that would give the nations’ mutual enemies comfort and encouragement.

Jennifer Rubin summarizes:

It is a shame more groups didn’t express these sentiments to the president; it would have served to educate and persuade him of the misguided and unwise course he has chosen to pursue. The president is trying to pass this all off as a “perception” problem, which is odd for a man who prides himself on his communication skills. To be understood so badly and to have so many take away an unintended message is indeed a failure of public diplomacy.

But let’s be honest here. It is more than perception. The president told those in attendance that he doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel. In fact, he thinks the failure of the Bush administration consisted of, in essence, providing too much support to our ally Israel. Obama is in the “even-handed” business — as he is with so many international questions.

However Rubin is wrong to wonder why more groups at the meeting didn’t object. President Obama wasn’t reaching out to the Jewish community, he was dictating to it. Malcolm Hoenlein, Steven Savitsky and Abraham Foxman were exceptions at the meeting. Remember three of the groups represented ( J-Street, NJDC and APN) are headed by Democratic party activists. J-Street is an adjunct of the Obama campaign as one of its founders (and funders) is Alan Solomont, who was a major contributor to Obama’s presidential bid.

Peretz and Michael Totten, for example, think that there is growing dissatisfaction among Jews about President Obama’s positions on the Middle East. I hope so. And I hope, that if it’s so, more Jews (and pro-israel Christians) will make that dissatisfaction public. I don’t need Jeremy Ben Ami – someone whose constituency is not much larger than the President’s ear claiming the he speaks for me.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

What constitutes being “anti-Israel?”

Being anti-Israel means rejecting the notion of the right of the Jewish people to a state that didn’t exist before, and that its establishment was a mistake. Those who question the very founding premise of this state are anti-Israel.

Ben Ami is skilled enough not to sound totally crazy in the interview. But the question behind every reasonable sounding he gives is: how will American pressure on Israel bring peace to the Middle East when the other side – both Hamas and Fatah – is clearly anti-Israel?

Still Ben Ami can take some comfort from the fact that there are those who think that he’s perfectly reasonable.

Among the many amusing sidelights to this rant is that Walt recommends that Bibi ditch Evangelical supporters of Israel and instead invite J-Street front man Jeremy Ben-Ami to Jerusalem to be his advisor. That’s funny because ever since J Street was born Ben-Ami has claimed that critics of his group who drew a straight line between his “pro-Israel lobby” and the anti-Israel philosophy of Walt and Mearsheimer are wrong. Somebody needs to tell Walt that his support won’t help Ben-Ami’s futile attempt to portray himself as the true voice of American Jewry on Israel.

Hmm. The pro-Israel Ben Ami gets an endorsement from the anti-Israel, Walt.

Related reading: Doing the J-Street Jive, J-Street and defining pro-Israel, and J-Street: You Know What American Campuses Need? More Left Wing Anti-Israel Activism.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.