Why I (still) support J Street
This weekend, several of us from Jewschool will join over 2,000 other people in DC for the 2011 J Street conference. The reasons for my continued involvement with and support for J Street are complex. On the one hand, I harbor deep moral reservations concerning the idea of religious or ethnic states. Yet I find the idea of a binational state completely unworkable, in that I don’t think it would materially improve Palestinians’ lives (I tend to think it would worsen them).
So what’s a Jew to do? I realized early on in my activism that J Street was a unique organization. Unique not only in its policy positions, but in its belief of how those positions should be articulated, advanced, and discussed. J Street’s dual function – advancing a liberal view of Israel that treats Palestinians as partners in nation-building rather than obstacles to Jewish self-determination while simultaneously establishing a robust space where Israel-Palestine activism can stem from real, respectful discussion – is often criticized as a weakness, but I view it as a strength. Having spent the last few years getting more and more deeply involved with J Street, and, as a consequence, surrounding myself more and more with like-minded Jews, it’s easy for me to forget the guttural fear and hatred that J Street still inspires in some of its foes. That fear, itself a symptom of close-mindedness, is what convinces me that J Street is doing something right. It’s what keeps me passionate about my activism. And it’s what keeps me excited about the vast amount of work that still remains to be done.
Working with J Street has caused me to question how the traditional pro-Israel narrative is presented, and to reflect on how this narrative permeates so many aspects of Jewish cultural and religious life. This weekend, I’m looking forward to fresh inspiration from people who’ve dedicated their careers and lives to democratizing that narrative and opening it to criticism, revision, and ownership by those of us who for too long were defined out of its constituency.
If you’ll be at the conference, let us know! We’d love to see you there.
You know who won’t be at the conference? Congressman Ackerman.
Yet I find the idea of a binational state completely unworkable, in that I don’t think it would materially improve Palestinians’ lives (I tend to think it would worsen them).
At least you’re honest that the quality of Jewish lives is not a guiding factor in your decision making.
Personally, I’m looking forward to observing the JStreet conference simply because I’m now utterly confused about what JStreet stands for and who it aims to represent. It just seems like a marginalized, mismanaged and scandal-ridden org with a policy agenda lying in tatters. It’s really unfortunate. I was never a JStreet fan, but Ben Ami had me convinced about a year ago that he deserved the benefit of doubt.
You know who won’t be at the conference? Congressman Ackerman.
Well, harumph, I say.
At least you’re honest that the quality of Jewish lives is not a guiding factor in your decision making.
Wow! Talk about putting words in his mouth. I think it’s about as easy it can get to read his implied meaning, which is that he–and I–like J Street because it values the quality of both Jewish and Palestinian lives.
I no more put words in his mouth than you just did. Inference by omission is perfectly valid, under the circumstances. When someone is describing an event which would fundamentally transform the lives of millions of people, and then declares his interest to be the fate of a small subgroup population, it is not unreasonable to infer that he does so with relative apathy as to the fate of other populations.
Which is fine. RB has a right to care about Palestinians and not care about Jews.
I think it’s about as easy it can get to read his implied meaning, which is that he–and I–like J Street because it values the quality of both Jewish and Palestinian lives.
As opposed to AIPAC, which very openly and publicly supported the:
disengagement agreements with Syria and Egypt
Interim Agreement with Egypt
Camp David Accords
Egypt Treaty
Oslo Accords
Cairo Agreement
Jordan Treaty
Oslo II
Hebron Agreement
Wye Agreement
@RB and DAMW and KFJ:
I challenge any of you to dispute that AIPAC did not very openly support any of these agreements. (and if you can’t at least admit as much, even though it doesn’t necessarily support the “AIPAC is a right-wing movement” argument.)
That’s not to say that AIPAC is not without its faults, and surely it is open to much criticism–as is the whole “pro-Israel” apparatus in the USA.
But, maybe we can get off of our high horses a bit, with this “only J Street members have the courage to stand up for what’s correct” refrain.
J1: I challenge any of you to dispute that AIPAC did not very openly support any of these agreements. (and if you can’t at least admit as much, even though it doesn’t necessarily support the “AIPAC is a right-wing movement” argument.)
I’m not trying to make the claim that they didn’t.
If AIPAC constituents want to stand up and proclaim their excitement at being part of the organization, I have zero problem with that.
Victor: RB has a right to care about Palestinians and not care about Jews.
I care first and foremost about ending the occupation. The occupation primarily hurts Palestinians. I’m not obligated to pretend that all the parties are being harmed equally.
None of us are obligated to pretend that we care more about groups of people that we actually do. You care more about the wellbeing of Palestinians than of Jews. There’s nothing wrong with that. This is the point I was making for DAWM. We are now all in agreement.
And, btw, I think it’s interesting, RB, that you chose “ending the occupation” as your… well, primary occupation. In contrast, my primary “occupation”, as it were, is achieve a peaceful outcome that preserves lives and rights. We all have our priorities.
@RB
I wrote above I challenge any of you to dispute that AIPAC did not very openly support any of these agreements.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/supporting-settlement-freeze-has-been-labeled-subversive-1.351695
I stand corrected.
J1, I appreciate the clarification, which is consistent with your general willingness to correct yourself. But I hope it’s clear that in proclaiming my excitement about J Street (something that I’m well aware I do a lot of) I don’t want to dampen others’ enthusiasm for their own activism. Part of why I like J Street so much is that it doesn’t exist to combat other US Jewish political organizations. Obviously part of that is political branding, but in my interactions with J Street staff, I really do feel that they fundamentally believe in a pluralistic opinion space.