RJR ADDED: "In light of
the statement by J Street denying the removal of "Pro Israel" from its college arm, I am no longer "lost" on the J Street cause. I kept the blog posted here, however, as it encapsulates some key positions I hold about Israel and our relationship to it."
The original posting:
First, there was chatter about creating a more moderate alternative to AIPAC; about creating a pro-Israel, DC-based lobbying type organization that would not be so hawkish and right wing. Maybe there could be something like the New Israel Fund vis-a-vis Federation. There certainly seemed to be a need for the unheard voices in our community to state a case for
helping Israel by stopping the "anything Israel does, we support" policies of the Bush and prior administrations. I have never accepted the argument that American Jews have no right to express their opinions about Israel since we don't serve in its army or send our kids there. That kind of argument only seems to appear when American Jews are critical of Israeli military policies (i.e., it never comes up when we criticize the government's stance toward Reform Jewish issues in Israel or the high rate of traffic fatalities in Israel). It also doesn't stop us from criticizing the military policies of Russia (vs. Chechnya), China (vs. Taiwan), North Korea (vs. everyone), etc. In fact, I still opine vocally about American military action even though I have not served in the armed forces and don't have a child in uniform. We have a right - an obligation even - to speak out. All the more so when it comes to Israel, the Jewish homeland.
Next, there was the announcement of J Street and its staff. Timed closely with the arrival of the Obama presidency, J Street attracted both heightened concern and, of course, "Hope." But always, J Street was based on a pro-Israel philosophy, even if its mission was to challenge the dominant, AIPAC-charted course for America's relationship with Israel.
The Reform Movement welcomed J Street's arrival upon the scene. We seemed like natural allies (or at least fellow travelers). Then, URJ President, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, split with J Street over some of its statements during and just after the Cast Lead Gaza War. If liberals like Rabbi Yoffie were unsure of J street.... Oy. (Read Rabbi Yoffie's editorial
here and J Street's response
here).
Now,
according to the Jerusalem Post, J Street has announced that it is dropping the phrase "PRO-ISRAEL" from its slogan (which had been "Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace") for all its college and universities offices and programs. The phrase "Pro-Israel" is "isolating" not "comfortable" and "alienating." In some places, J Street activists say, the words "PRO-ISRAEL" are just outright bad.
I guess you never could have counted me among J Street's vocal supporters, but you have lost me with that one. Perhaps the question comes down to whether or not Israel advocacy groups like AIPAC or J Street have inherently Jewish characters or missions (
J Street describes its constituents as "primarily but not exclusively Jewish"). If so, there are certain things that are not negotiable. Being proudly and publicly "Pro-Israel" is one of them, even if our understanding of that term pushes us to criticize Israel. If not, is J Street a more politically savy version of the International Solidarity Movement or ANSWER? Those are hardly among the "friends" of Israel or Jewish people in general. And if not, you've lost me for sure because I need a Jewish voice that is pro-peace and still pro-Israel.
(p.s. J Street addresses these kinds of critiques directly on its
myths and facts section of its website, check them out for yourself)
