Israel, Politics

Brit Tzedek + J Street =

If you’ve missed the news, Brit Tzedek v’Shalom and J Street have entered into negotiations to incorporate the former into the latter, uniting the grassroots votes with the financial clout, respectively, to protect Obama’s back in Congress.
As someone privy to the negotiations, I can’t discuss the evolving details until their completion in late October. But the broad strokes are such: Brit Tzedek’s grassroots chapters will be incorporated into J Street much the same as the Union of Progressive Zionists became J Street U (fan them on Facebook). J Street will hire a national field director and host of regional organizers to take the 50,000 supporters in 40 chapters to the next level of influence. Together they will represent the best thing to happen to Israel politics since Yitzak Rabin shook Yassir Arafat’s hand.
Brit Tzedek built in 8 years what had failed repeatedly over the past 40: a national grassroots conduit for liberal Israel supporters in every major city. Zealously guarding their reputation as staunch Israel supporters, they built leadership teams in 40 major cities based in synagogues and supported by a rabbinical network of some 1,500 rabbis and cantors. Where previous groups failed to prove their Jewish credentials and imploded, Brit Tzedek staked out a secure turf and coined the now common slogan “pro-Israel, pro-peace There is more than one way to be pro-Israel.”
As detailed in a lengthy NY Times Magazine peice this week, J Street in one year has managed to complete the pro-peace movement with a PAC that allows liberal political donors to designate their funds as pro-Israel but not pro-stupidity, hire a staff of 12, and lure big name leadership (like Hadar Susskind formerly head of the JCPA’s DC operation). With a confrontational edge, the org has created a media fray that’s zeroed in on right-wing ties to Pastor John Hagee, Sarah Palin, and the settler movement.
The two of them combined means that any action brings to bear the combined attention of everyday constituents and the big-pursed donors. The pro-Israel right is continually and hopefully sounding the death knell of  overwhelming Jewish support for Obama. But in poll after poll, they cannot fight the sheer number of American Jews who want the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over peaceably and support Obama’s approaches. But the past has showed that Congress doesn’t give a damn about opinion polls unless those constituents get off their asses and back up an opinion with a vote or a check. It’s vital that the Jewish left consolidate, streamline and maximize resources.
The left wing now represents the strongest infrastructure its ever had: a PAC, a grassroots presence, rabbinical cover, a campus wing, and a President that’s right where they want him to be.  The untapped potential is vast but there is only a 12-18 month window to push negotiations to completion and Bibi Netanyahu is pushing back with all his might. The Brit Tzedek-J Street arrangement couldn’t come at a more crucial point. But thank God, now it’s time to get to work.
If you’ve not signed up for the J Street “Driving Change, Securing Peace” conference on October 25-28, then you must. The conference features an alliance of all the major progressive Israel groups, leading Israeli human rights activists, the new leaders of the pro-peace Jewish community, and a bit of a party too. You can go to the “Driving Change, Securing Peace” conference for free — submit an essay to Jewschool’s contest by September 20.

35 thoughts on “Brit Tzedek + J Street =

  1. as pro-Israel but not pro-stupidity,
    Could have fooled me.
    But in poll after poll, they cannot fight the sheer number of American Jews who want the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over peaceably and support Obama’s approaches
    You’re fooling yourself.

  2. Hey KFJ, Great report! Just one correction though: Brit Tzedek didn’t coin the term “pro-Israel, pro-peace.” That was one of APN’s (Americans for Peace Now) taglines for many years, including when I co-founded Chicago Peace Now in 2001. It goes to show that a good idea isn’t the property of any one group, and I couldn’t have been happier when Brit Tzedek helped give it even broader currency. Now many more of us are poised to come together to form an even more effective fighting force for peace and security for Israel and America. Keep up the great work! Doni

  3. “But in poll after poll, they cannot fight the sheer number of American Jews who want the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over peaceably and support Obama’s approaches.”
    You mean those “impartial” polls formulated, conducted and analyzed by Jim Gerstein, their secret Vice President, that seem to always show large support for their position while being somewhat at odds with the results of other polls that actually are conducted impartially?
    Don’t get me wrong. I long for peace and have always supported a two-state solution if it would actually achieve said goals. I also appreciate the attention lavished by the Obama Presidency on the issue. I’m just not such a big fan of shenanigans.
    Oh, and Jstreet’s response to the boycott of the Toronto International Film Festival by anti-Israel activists was pretty good. Whereas Salam Al-Marayati speaking at JStreet’s next conference? Not so good.

  4. Hadar Susskind was formerly head of the Jewish Council for Public Affair’s Washington DC office. He was not head of the NYC-based JCPA.

  5. CK, long before J Street or Obama’s Presidency, the majority of American Jewish opinion polls already supported Obama: two states, negotiations, an end to settlements, and American even-handedness. Read up, yo.
    And your bothering about impartiality is smoke — the study is statistically sound. If all you can complain about is that the statistician and the commissioning org are FRIENDS, then I’m very pleased with the study indeed. Meanwhile, Frank Luntz’s capable opinion polls for other Jewish orgs can be invalidated also.
    Otherwise, it’s very nice that you are sort of, kinda, maybe, in a distant way, friendly to, open-minded about, and inclined to the general notion of peace. If only the evil Arabs didn’t wipe away your coexistance dreams at every opportunity! The peaceful, innocent Israelis never did ANYTHING to make the situation worse! Oh woe!
    …Gimme a break. Do something, don’t just think pretty about it.

  6. I just barked a good laugh when I see that the opinion poll CK put forward is the one by the Traditional Values Coalition by GMRS. (Did you cross-reference the list of their staff and board members, CK?)
    Briefly, here’s the results:
    The poll found that 58% think Obama “is doing a good job of promoting peace in the Middle East.” (Only 16% disagreed with this statement.) Asked “Do you think President Obama is being too tough on Israel?”, 55% said no. (Only 18% said yes.)
    As I said, I’ve never needed a liberal poll to show support for peace. J Street’s poll is important because it asks questions that the other polls aren’t asking. It asks about the nuances of compromises that other “impartial” poll commissioners won’t ask because TVC, for example, isn’t interested in showing that compromise is possible, only generalized support for Israel is bigger than generalized distrust of Palestinians. That’s why J Street’s poll is important and different — it gets at the details of how we could forge an agreeable settlement.
    CK, it irritates me how you claim to want peace, but you spend hours arguing against anything that might lead to it.

  7. This is fabulous news!
    And I wish I could go to the JStreet conference… but my doctors have recommended that I not fly during my third trimester, so travel to DC is — alas — not in my future. I look forward to reading all about it, though!

  8. Doni: I looked into the slogan and my source made a mistake. “Pro-Israel, pro-peace” was used by APN before BTVS. The slogan “There is more than one way to be pro-Israel” was coined by Brit Tzedek board member Cherie Brown.
    Today, to hear “there is more than one way to be pro-Israel” used by Representatives and Senators when meeting with them is a huge success for the peace movement’s work in Congress. It’s one of the subtle but biggest shifts in the conversation about Israel in US government.
    Aryeh: Correctly noted. Thanks.

  9. Hours? Walla. Sorry if I get annoyed when polls meant to be unbiased are shown to be demonstrably biased. Gerstein isn’t just a friend of JStreet – he was listed as their VP. And I never called leftists evil Amit. Sheesh. Don’t put words in my mouth! That goes for you too KFJ. Have you ever heard me call Arabs evil?? Don’t project that bullshit onto me. If Frank Luntz is running polls for organizations that he’s an executive of and then providing the analysis and then pretending that said poll was unbiased, I’ll criticize him too. Or anyone else that runs shoddy polls. Anyone. Else. But this post isn’t about Frank Luntz. it’s about JStreet. Any way you cut it, having a VP run a poll for you makes the results and analysis suspect. They should have gone with Zogby – why not if the data is so statistically sound? Why leave themselves open to the sort of legitimate criticism I’m making? And frankly, I’m kind of surprised to hear you say that the poll is more compelling particularly because its biased. Wow.
    “CK, it irritates me how you claim to want peace, but you spend hours arguing against anything that might lead to it.”
    Yeah. because as a resident of Israel, all I want is constant warfare with the Arabs who I like a hell of a lot more than most Ashkenazim. Yup. You got me pegged there! What I want is lasting peace, especially if it’s going to cost me dearly. I have always been and remain open to ideas, strategies and actions that are likely to lead to a lasting peace. I know everyone wants Obama to succeed, but no one gets my rubber stamped, unequivocal seal of approval when my life and that of my loved ones is on the line. Sorry.

  10. I have always been and remain open to ideas, strategies and actions that are likely to lead to a lasting peace.
    So let’s skip the squable about statistians.
    I understand your closeness to Israel, not least because you and yours live there. I also understand (mostly) that you feel Israel is the biggest victim in the conflict and needs to be protected in the media, in politics, and so on.
    What I don’t understand is a defeatist attitude that the Arabs hate us, the Israelis shouldn’t compromise, and America should just maintain its present support without much else, meaning there’s nothing we can do except continue the status quo. But if there’s a chance to point out how crazy the Palestinians are, you’re all over that talking point.
    It’s very confusing to me. You support an end to fighting, but don’t advocate anything (even your own solutions, within your own view of pragmatism) that advances that day. This is an easy misconception to get through your writing: peace is something to be fought, criticized, discredited and mocked.
    Even if I were to believe that peace is very far away, shouldn’t I be doing something about it, in order to make it closer? This is what doens’t match between your words with your expressed sympathies.

  11. In all fairness, KFJ, you should explain what you mean by a “two state solution”. Are you arguing for a Palestinian state alongside an Israel that is forced to accept millions of Palestinian immigrants from abroad, immediately losing its Jewish character?
    Are you arguing for a Palestinian state alongside a “state for all its citizens”, where Jews may one day not constitute a majority, thus essentially rejecting the idea of a “Jewish state”?
    Are you arguing for a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish state of Israel? In that case, how do you progressively reconcile the laws and customs of a state which entitle Jews (such as the law of return, etc.) over the rights of a non-Jewish minority?
    I’d like to get opinions from you and those of you who support JStreet about these questions. Perhaps it would be useful to those of us looking at JStreet to have their official position on these questions as well.

  12. Jonathan1:
    Several factors give us a set of ideal conditions before peacemaking becomes really difficult.
    Most importantly, Obama has the first two years of his administration before Israel will become a political football as he warms up for reelection. The closer to reelection, the less forceful he can be about concessions from Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world. Otherwise we wait until 2013 to start again.
    Second, we’ve learned from the Clinton peace process that the Israeli and Palestinian publics can only be expected to back peace talks that actually produce results within this kind of a time frame. Talks that languished for years resulted in the second Palestinian uprising and the rightward fall of Israeli electorate. Obama has started the ball rolling, lasting longer will test public patience.
    Third, the American military trainers of the Palestinian military made them promises that they’ll be policing a Palestinian state in 2 years.
    Fourth, as the settlements increase, the one-state Palestinian elements and the international Israel apartheid movement will gain momentum. It could complicate international support for two state negotiations.
    Lastly, in recent weeks, Salaam Fayyad has made public commitments to the Palestinians recently with his statehood plan to have a de facto government infrastructure in two years.
    We’ve got less than two years to make this happen.

  13. MS asked “Exactly what good things have come out of Rabin and Arafat shaking hands?” Here are two accounts of the enormous good that has come out of it: I can’t say it better than Rabin’s long-time aide and one of Israel’s veteran journalists, Eitan Haber, who wrote an oped in Ynet yesterday called “We’ll be missing Oslo” at
    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3776358,00.html Among his key points: “The despised and condemned [Oslo] agreement prompted dozens of states to recognize Israel; 200 international companies who previously did not agree to launch operations in Israel arrived; seven diplomatic missions opened in seven Arab states (and vice versa in Tel Aviv.) We saw unprecedented economic growth that was never again seen (7.6%,) a dramatic drop in unemployment from 11% to 5.6%; first-ever visits by an Israeli prime minister to states that did not allow such visits for dozens of years (for example, Indonesia.)”
    To add to Haber: After the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries lifted their secondary and tertiary boycott of Israel, and contacts between Israel and a number of Arab countries were initiated or intensified. A recent editorial in the Financial Times summarized the situation during the 1990’s: “In 1992-1996, at the height of the peace process, Israel reaped a peace dividend without concluding a peace. Diplomatic recognition of Israel doubled, from 85 to 161 countries, exports doubled and foreign direct investment increased six-fold; per capita income in the occupied territories, however, fell in the same period by more than a third, while the number of settlers expanded by half.”

  14. Mr. Rembi,
    I think what MS is more referrng to is how, during the height of the Oslo years, many Israelis (including me) mocked the Likud MK’s who warned that Arafat would use the guns we allowed him against us at some point. How did Peres put it?: “It’s not what Arafat says, it’s what he does.”
    Then, after Ehud Barak was elected to make a deal with Arafat, President Clinton (who was almost obsessed with trying to secure a deal) had to drag Arafat (the Nobel Peace Prize recipient) kicking and screaming to a conference aimed at granting the Palestinians independence for the first time ever. Arafat rejected all of Clinton and Barak’s ideas–without offering any of his own. His staff’s excuse was that they hadn’t been prepared to discuss the final-status issues (50 years apparantly wasn’t enough time to ponder such things.) Also, they complained that Barak hadn’t invited Arafat to his personal cabin at Camp David. Most importantly, their official position was that no Jewish Temple ever existed on the Temple Mount.
    Then, after Sharon visited the Temple Mount (the horror–a Jew going there,) the Palestinians in fact did use those guns against us (whether Arafat wanted the violence or simply couldn’t control it didn’t really matter in effect.) The Nobel Laureate sure did make a lot of speeches exorting martyrdom (ie, suicide bombers,)though.
    While all of this was going on, many of the nations you mention broke off diplomatic ties with Israel (Jordan and Egypt recalled their respective ambassadors.) Riots raged throughout the Arab world and Europe, where synagogues were torched.
    Then, President Clinton presented to both Israeli and Palestinian leadership suggested negotiating parameters. [ http://usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/peace/archives/2001/january/me0108b.html%5DThe Barak government accepted them as a basis for talks. Mr. Arafat hid from the Clinton team for a few days. Finally, he said he needed more time to examine the issues (he did start talking about what a good idea they were . . . . a year later.)
    Sharon was elected in February 2001, and the two-state idea was thus postponed.
    Lucky for all of us, the violence and bombings continued though, through the disasterous spring of 2002, when Israel retook the West Bank–with President Bush’s complicity–and the violence finally began to end; it really finished with the assasination of Rantsi in the spring of ’04.
    I think that’s kind of what MS is referring too . . . so we don’t need to pretend that it’s Bush’s fault (it wasn’t) and Obama has some magic wand to solve everything (he doesn’t, although he is a good man, trying the approach he thinks is best to bring peace.)
    He then returned to Gaza and proclaimed in his first speech afterward that Barak could go to hell.

  15. Jonathan, I think you forgot the part about 2007, when Olmert offered Abbas the Clinton plan, ’67 borders with territorial exchanges, East Jerusalem including the Temple Mount, accepting 200,000 Palestinian immigrants, etc.
    Abbas never responded to the plan, instead declaring – in the words of “chief Palestinian negotiator” Erakat, (referring to the subterranean ruins of the Temple) “above al Aqsa [Muslim mosque built on the Temple ruins] and below al Aqsa there is only Allah”.
    But really, the issue has never been whether the Arabs want to make peace, because they can do so at any point. Tomorrow, if the Palestinians decide that there will be peace, there will be peace.
    I think KFJ quite rightly acknowledges this reality by saying, essentially, that just because the Arabs aren’t interested in peace doesn’t give Israel the moral right to abandon the peace process.
    So, this isn’t about what the Arabs want; they’ve made that clear again and again, and not even KFJ contests that. It’s about what people like him who populate JStreet really are pushing Israel to do, and why. It’s about how they see themselves, Israel, the Arabs, and a final status solution. That’s the basis of the three questions I raised above. I hope those questions are answered honestly.

  16. The “Two Years” is pushed for in an almost manic way, in the proposed palestinian government document. Now politicians along with “piece” activists, have come up with lots off nonsense why it is essential like “we have to slip it is now before Obama has to answer to the will of the american voter.” Maybe, just maybe, Iran has already made plans on a bombing Israel within two years. Which is why the Iranian supported Palestinian nationalists have a fire under their teez, two create a two state “solution” ASAP. Once those borders are nice and clean, and separated along ethnic lines they can bomb little Israel and not feel any moral pangs about the few disloyal muslims that sided with the Zionist entity. And then the Palestinian nationalists can move in and complete their actual stated goal – their ONE state solution. Don’t like thinking about that? have you ever thought about what a two state “solution” will do to geo-politics of the middle east?
    KFJ, I think you should reevaluate your dismissal of CK’s claims against the poll, they are completely valid and by supporting dishonesty you undermine your moral standing as a “peace” activist. It makes it appear as if your just fighting for Palestinian Nationalism.

  17. I applaud the merger of JStreet and BTVS. My only question was about reports that there will be a rump group of BTVS folks who will stay separate. This reminds me of my own experience of people being a bit too attached to their own label and not the broader movement or principles behind it. As for the benefits of Oslo (at least to Israel) having the appearance of an end to Occupation while maintaining full control (as evidenced by frequent military incursions) has been a great boon to Israel, even though it has allowed a horrible situation to continue. Basically the job of daily services of Palestinians has been effectively subcontracted to the PA, who can then be blamed for anything that goes wrong.

  18. having the appearance of an end to Occupation while maintaining full control (as evidenced by frequent military incursions) has been a great boon to Israel
    It has?

  19. KFJ wrote: I also understand (mostly) that you feel Israel is the biggest victim in the conflict and needs to be protected in the media, in politics, and so on.
    Again, putting words in my mouth. The hierarchy of victimhood doesn’t interest me and it isn’t very helpful really. I don’t pretend that the Palestinians haven’t suffered and that from their perspective, that’s all that matters. And that’s fine! I just think Israel has a lot at stake and is facing an existential danger that the “other side” doesn’t ever really have to worry about. It’s not about who is suffering more, it’s about whose national and physical presence might be obliterated within 5 years.
    KFJ added: What I don’t understand is a defeatist attitude that the Arabs hate us, the Israelis shouldn’t compromise, and America should just maintain its present support without much else, meaning there’s nothing we can do except continue the status quo. But if there’s a chance to point out how crazy the Palestinians are, you’re all over that talking point.
    How do you reconcile what you just wrote with my oft stated support for a two state solution? And if I focus from time to time on the “Arabs Gone Wild” spectrum of the news it’s because it has strong bearing on my prospects for long term peace and the aforementioned existential issues.
    KFJ continued: You support an end to fighting, but don’t advocate anything (even your own solutions, within your own view of pragmatism) that advances that day. This is an easy misconception to get through your writing: peace is something to be fought, criticized, discredited and mocked.
    No, what needs to be fought, criticized, discredited and mocked is the notion that Israel is solely to blame and that exerting one-sided pressure on her is going to result in anything productive at all. That’s where you’ll see a very clear congruence between my words, my sympathies and my actions.
    Anyhoo… I’m totally knackered. Just moved. Gaaaah!

    1. ck writes:
      I just think Israel has a lot at stake and is facing an existential danger that the “other side” doesn’t ever really have to worry about. It’s not about who is suffering more, it’s about whose national and physical presence might be obliterated within 5 years.
      Now we’re reaching agreement! Maintaining the status quo in the territories will mean the obliteration of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, an existential danger that no one else has to worry about.

  20. No, what needs to be fought, criticized, discredited and mocked is the notion that Israel is solely to blame and that exerting one-sided pressure on her is going to result in anything productive at all.
    Which is exactly what J Street is saying? I don’t get you.

  21. Why do people seem to think that placing the greater burden of responsibility on the side with F-16s, tanks and nuclear weapons, instead of the side with home made rockets and no airplanes is a stupid idea? You can’t have the planes if you don’t take the blame.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.