Jim Lobe reported this interesting news through the Inter Press Service, which was picked up by The Electronic Intifada, and republished on 17 April 2008.
WASHINGTON, 15 April (IPS) – A new group of prominent US Jews who believe that the so-called “Israel Lobby” has been dominated for too long by neo-conservatives and other Likud-oriented hawks has launched a new organization to help fund political candidates who favor a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a stronger US role in achieving it.
Almost two years in the making, the “J Street” project plans to spend some 1.5 million dollars — about half of which has been pledged to date — in its first year of operation, a portion of which will go to supporting half a dozen Congressional campaigns for candidates who share its pro-peace and pro-Israel views.
According to Jeremy Ben-Ami, a founder and director of both J Street and its political-action affiliate, JstreetPac:
“For too long, the loudest American voices on Israel have come from the far right. Those voices have claimed that the only way to be pro-Israel is to support military responses to political problems, to refuse to engage one’s adversaries in dialogue and to put off the day of reckoning when hard compromises will be required to achieve a peaceful and secure future for Israel and the entire Middle East. These are not the kind of smart, tough views that serve the long-term interests of the state of Israel, of the United States — or frankly, the American Jewish community.”
The J Street project is reported to have the endorsement of two dozen prominent Israelis: former directors of Israel’s foreign ministry, a former chief of the Israel Defense Forces General Staff, a former commander of the Israeli air force and other top former military and intelligence officers. In a letter to the J Street founders, they wrote,
Now more than ever, true friendship requires strong American leadership and engagement to move the sides toward a comprehensive two-state solution. With time running out, business-as-usual will not do.
The J Street project is an obvious challenge to AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), whose right wing leadership opposes Israeli concessions in negotiations with Palestinians and Israel’s other Arab neighbors, and aligns itself with the most right wing Likudnik American organizations like the Zionist Organization of America and the American Jewish Committee, whose Zionist agendas speak only of Judea and Samaria (WestBank), lands continuing to be colonized by the Israel government. AIPAC has also cultivated alliances with prominent right-wing Christian Zionists such as John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), who recently urged a preemptive war with Iran.
The J Street project is new, reportedly less well funded than AIPAC (1.5 million as opposed to 50 million via PACs), and lacks the influence of AIPAC in Congress. An interesting statistic reported in this article is that Jewish Americans, although they make up only about two percent of the US population, provide up to 40 percent of campaign contributions to Democratic candidates and up to 20 percent of campaign contributions to Republican candidates. Israel cannot be ignored by any presidential or congressional candidate.
The present Democratic candidates are undoubtedly aware of this funding potential and thus, fear of AIPAC, is a factor in American politics. The positions taken by J Street, however, are also relevant to the foreign policy agenda of the next president, and these are what they are:
…calls for territorial compromises with the Palestinians based largely on the 1967 borders with reciprocal land swaps and the division of Jerusalem. The group also favors strong US support for Israeli-Syrian peace negotiations and direct, high-level US talks with Iran to address all issues of mutual concern, including ending Iranian opposition to Arab-Israeli peace efforts and its support for armed anti-Israel groups in Palestine and Lebanon.
The full article is copyrighted, but it can be LINKED HERE.
A final quote from the interview with Ben Ami:
“Voices of reason need to reclaim what it means to be pro-Israel and to establish in American political discourse that Israel’s core security interest is to achieve a negotiated two-state solution and to define once and for all permanent, internationally-recognized borders.”
It is evident that being pro-Israel in the J Street sense is also being pro-Palestinian, even though not all issues relevant to a final peace settlement are discussed.
Sign me up!
if you’re really interested, shoot me an email.
Emailed.. Mine is the one from the unrecognizable address with no reference to what it is about.. You’d think I’d have mastered email by now…
Anyhow – I am very interested. Especially as I had long thought that this org’s platform was the accepted American Reform Jewish stance (Until the last 6 years that is). Now that the US has it’s own leverage points in the Middle East, Israel can be changed for the better – and must be.
Did I ever tell you how my bro and mom were on a web-published hit list because they had these same views at some point when they were dumb enough to write them down (letters to editors)? I had to spoof an email from a right-wing zionist group to have them removed (worked).
i don’t see it.
Gonna facebook you.
Yet more proof that the “American Jewish Community” is not a monolithic unified entity.
Please sign our petition — co-sponsored by A Just Foreign Policy http://www.justforeignpolicy.org — to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain asking them to support former President Carter and support talks with Hamas:
Jimmy Carter knows that, according to Haaretz, 64% of Israelis have said they want their government to talk with Hamas about a cease-fire.[A] He knows that after Hamas won the January 2006 elections, it was willing to declare a ceasefire and allow President Abbas to negotiate with Israel on behalf of all Palestinians.[B]
Please sign the petition now.
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/301/t/1849/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=1175
Sincerely,
Sydney, Cecilie, Rachel, Rebecca, and Jean
Jewish Voice for Peace
Appropriate gesture.
You got it.
Patterned off the Jewish pro-peace group founded in Britain some two years ago, …in that time frame.
On the face of it – sounds good, should be a happy, welcomed day.
Notquite pro-Palestinian. Far, far from it.
A thorough analysis of the J Street stated policy position on the “Two State Solution; Settlements; Security and Terror” lead to some pointed questions.
paint me a dubious Sephardic yid. To be fair, you can’t judge an organization soley on its policy positions. BUT as stated and until such time that J-Street addresses more fully these issues in concrete actions, I have to agree with this critique by Rannie Amiri
Amiri concludes:
When J Street takes up causes like this atrocity found at Professor Juan Cole’s blog, I will applaud.
You know, that $1.5 million J Street intends to spend this year, …Hint: peel off $750,000 to Save the Palestinian Children’s fund. That will go a very long way to pro-peace.
Wishing all a Good Pesach.
Being anti-APIAC is a good start, I would think, and while their agenda is left of all the major Israeli political parties, including Labor, Kadima, and Likud, you are correct: it is not left enough. It does not address all of the injustices perpetrated against the Palestinian people over the last 60 years.
But it is a beginning. It is a turn away from the Zionist nationalist dream of an Israel from the Jordan River to the sea. It is a turning toward human rights and recognition that Palestinian nationalism must be respected. The details can perhaps be sorted out later.
Specific points: Peres is not a left wing Zionist, who gives a damn about the Palestinians. The Barak 2000 offer was a sham, and everyone knows that today. An interesting turnabout by Barak can be heard in a January 25, 2005 interview he did with Charlie Rose.
Not quoting literally, but Barak stated, Israel must declare its borders, and tens of thousands of settlers must be pulled back behind it. Presumably that referred to the Wall, and the territory it has taken would be compensated for. Most importantly, the Jordan Valley would be abandoned and the state of Palestine would abut Jordan. Barak also took the time to downplay the ruse of the “generous offer.” He admitted that “settlements were off the table” at Camp David, and that he did not have the political ability to remove a single settlement, to “disengage” from the West Bank. Not even “(his) own party (Labor)” would have condoned it, and that would have included Peres. I have grown to dislike Peres as a pseudoPeacenik, who lies and lies about Israel’s history.