Soccer Dad

The new pro-israel is the old anti-israel

Peace Now activist and sometimes journalist James Besser tries to figure out why the pro-Israel establishment is so angry at J-Street. While he occasionally pays lips service to the truth, his conclusion is J-Street boosterism (via memeorandum):

My own guess is that J Street is filling a void in Jewish life - a craving among many on a sizable but disorganized pro-Israel left and many in the non-activist center for a group that can represent a more dovish point of view in Congress and on the campaign trail - but it has a long way to go before it rivals AIPAC and the other pro-Israel power centers in money, commitment, expertise and smarts.

But it's in the game in a serious way; the media is taking note, some members of Congress are paying attention. No wonder we're hearing so much from an angry pro-Israel establishment.

Like APN and IPF in the past, most of the coverage J-Street gets in the mainstream media is uncritical. And unfortunately, Besser rather than looking into what J-Street is, frames his question so that he can cast J-Street in a positive light. Sure he mentions that the group consists of publicity hounds and identifies that as a weakness, but one can't read Besser and not get a sense of admiration.

Noah Pollak wrote a necessary corrective to this rose-colored view of J-Street. But for all of its claims to be representing a significant portion of the pro-Israel crowd, a number of Congressman who accepted J-Street broke very publicly with it over Operation Cast Lead.

Yet there was even more damage done to J Street during Cast Lead. Its efforts to influence congressional resolutions expressing support for Israel were roundly ignored, especially by the group's most prominent liberal endorsees. In the early days of J Street, M.J. Rosenberg, the policy director of the Israel Policy Forum, a group that Rosenberg says works "in parallel" with J Street, speculated that Jewish Democrats such as Barney Frank would become more critical of Israel if a liberal Jewish group existed to provide them moral and financial support. "They hear from the right-wing AIPAC crowd on this issue, but the people on the left talk to them about other issues," Rosenberg said. "They don't talk to them about this one. So I think all it takes is them hearing that this is what their constituents want, and I think that they will moderate their positions."

Rosenberg thought wrong. Barney Frank defended Cast Lead vigorously, saying that it is "a terrible thing to have happen but I think Americans ought to think about this, frankly, as analogous to what we did in Afghanistan." Other J Street endorsees in the House of Representatives, such as Adam Schiff of California, Robert Wexler of Florida, and Charles Rangel of New York, made similar pronouncements.

(Pollak's review of J-Street is comprehensive; read the whole thing.)

Since then President Obama's administration was ready to appoint Chas Freeman to head the National Intelligence Center. Freeman who is openly anti-Israel was nonetheless supported by J-Street and its friends. (Assuming as Freeman did that it was the "Israel Lobby" and not the investigation into his foreign dealings that sunk his appiontment, wouldn't this prove how impotent J-Street really is? But then again I don't believe that the lobbyists or bloggers had any role in Freeman's decision to withdraw.)

Take J-Street's support for Freeman or the presence of anti-Zionist Avraham Burg and anti-Israel former politician Lincoln Chafee on their advisory boards and you realize that J-Street isn't really pro-Israel. (I doubt the pro-peace too, as they had no problem with thousands of Hamas rockets being fired at Israeli civilians.)

As J-Street becomes more and more exposed, its liabilities become clearer. No wonder James Besser thought it needed a boost.

Crossposted on Yourish.