|
by Peter A. Belmont / 2010-02-22
© 2010 Peter Belmont
| |
J-Street undoubtedly seeks to create a large membership organization populated by Jews (and others) and claims to be the (only?) “political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement.”
Does this make it different from AIPAC in fact or only in its inessential decorations and wrappings? Is AIPAC in fact opposed to “peace”? (Is anyone against “peace”?). J-Street’s ABOUT page says:
J Street was founded to change the dynamics of American politics and policy on Israel and the Middle East. We believe the security and future of Israel as the democratic home of the Jewish people depend on rapidly achieving a two-state solution and regional comprehensive peace. Our mission is to promote meaningful American leadership to achieve peace and security in the Middle East and to broaden the debate on these issues nationally and in the Jewish community
How has it sought to “broaden the debate”?
|
|
I perceive J-Street as not sufficiently different from AIPAC (see How J-Street fails to help US, Israel, or US Jews longing for Peace) to warrant all attention it is getting. (See, for example,
’US Jews are tired of Israel and have no interest in racist settlers’.)
It appears that J-Street is either actually different from AIPAC or at least manages to project that impression.
Being unsure whether J-Street’s apparent difference from AIPAC is real or illusory, I’d ask the following questions. I wish to encourage policy discussion, not name-calling.
[1A] If J-Street claims that its policy positions are not merely a rehash of those of AIPAC, then ask those who perceive a difference to explain its PRESENT differences from AIPAC.
[1B] Are these PRESENT differences supposed to be “enough” to satisfy the political longings of progressive Jews and other Jews who, while loving Israel, do not love Israel’s policies and practices? (Recall the October conference, not much reflected in J-Street official activity.)
[2] Assuming that, today, J-Street is merely a rehash of AIPAC:
[2A] Does J-Street really mean SOMEDAY to be really progressive? (Who does it need permission from?) (and if not now, then when?) (didn’t the membership at the October conference sufficiently suggest a shift away from AIPAC policies to another direction TODAY?)
[2B1] Otherwise — and J-Street intends now and forever to be merely repackaged AIPAC — does J-Street mean to fool and subvert Progressive Jews?
[2B2] or, again Otherwise, does J-Street merely mean to fool non-Jews (but not to fool the progressive Jews, who, presumably really like the positions of AIPAC)?
[3A] Do many progressive Jews believe that the illegality of the presence of the settlers and of the wall in occupied territories and the clear anti-human rights consequences of these presences for Palestinians justify demanding the removal of all 500,000 settlers and the wall? See Obama should end illegalities of Israeli occupation before pressing for an Israeli/Palestinian peace treaty
[3B] If so, and J-Street does not make that demand, where does this disparity come from? NB: As of 2/25/2010, J-Street is content to await “peace” for the removal of the wall, but has no concrete proposal to speed “peace” on its way: Its present route has confiscated land and separated Palestinians from the jobs, health care and family. It will have to be relocated in many sections as part of a final status agreement.]
[3C] If not, then I’ve sadly misjudged the meaning of ‘progressive Jews’.
PS: I’m not even sure what I mean by ‘progressive’ as applied to myself. I suppose I mean that my principles are universal rather than situational. I believe in universal human rights, and I believe in the rule of law not only within nation-states but also as between them—and for the protection of human rights by the universal enforcement of humanitarian laws.
|
