J Street

The more I read about J. Street the less certain I am I understand it

In fact I'm beginning to regret I chose to write about it this week.

Yesterday I checked with my breakfast table parliamentarians to see what they knew about pro-Israel lobbies. Most of them knew something about AIPAC and had heard the name J.Street mentioned. The sum total opinion was that it's comforting to know that there are concerned Jews actively supporting Israel but we decide what's good for us.

The Economist's Washington correspondent provided a penetrating survey of the pro-Israel lobby scene, summing it up much the same as my breakfast table pundits did - "J Street's executive director Ben-Ami says American Jews take 'very sophisticated and nuanced positions' on the Middle East. But many will continue to prefer AIPAC’s simpler view that the government of Israel is the best judge of where Israel’s interests lie."
The axiom "American aid is good, American pressure is bad," crops up every time the peace process gets stuck at a no-go stage.

In their dealings with Israel U.S presidents shy from using coercive terms preferring softer synonyms, carrying more carrots than big sticks.

Likewise, there's a rule of thumb regarding our right-wing politicians which states that their determination to resist and oppose US pressure is directly related to their distance from the halls of government.

Yair Shamir a successful businessman with a good military background believes that "Fending off American pressure requires us to alter our tactics but not our goal."

In an article he wrote for the Jerusalem Post Shamir recalls his father's obstinacy in the face of US pressure. He quotes from a dedication written by Ehud Barak for a recent biography of his father -"Yitzchak Shamir: Firm as A Rock."

When Barak was IDF chief of staff he was once summoned to the Prime Minister's Office to meet with then US Secretary of State James Baker who had been demanding that Israel make far-reaching concessions.

"At one point I noticed Shamir's face became very tense and agitated," recalled Barak, "it looked like a volcano about to explode. He thumped on the table and told the secretary of state in a very blunt and undiplomatic manner, in a very sharp but self-controlled tone: 'Mr. Secretary, you can demand what you choose to demand but this is our country and we will not agree to do anything that will harm its interests and future even if our best friend demands it from us."

Just the same a rock-firm, immovable and reluctant Shamir went to the Madrid peace conference.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu doesn't thump on tables. He prefers guile and evasiveness. Just the same his declarations about the construction freeze are puzzling. Initially he zigzagged, first freezing then thawing. Lately there has been a lot of talk about building new housing units in places where the US administration wants to freeze construction. These declarations are detached from reality. Visitors to West Bank settlements report little or no construction activity. Ironically Netanyahu received a lot of flak from Obama and Clinton about settlement construction; the Palestinians complained and refused to renew negotiations till the building stops. Last but not least the settlers complain because there is a de facto freeze.

Obviously there was a need to dispel the haze of disinformation and also do something to defrost US-Israel relations. On Wednesday evening Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel would impose a 10-month freeze on construction in West Bank settlements, saying the move was a bid to restart stalled peace talks with the Palestinians. This self imposed freeze doesn't include greater Jerusalem; nevertheless, President Obama expressed satisfaction and the Palestinians said it was too little and too temporary to bring them to the conference table.

Undoubtedly AIPAC fulfils an important function. The New York Times calls it "the most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel." It has been described as one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, DC and its critics have argued that it holds undue influence over the U.S. Congress with regard to American foreign policy towards Israel.

If the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is indeed so powerful, and there is every reason to believe it is, who needs J.Street?

According to the J Street website, the organization seeks "to change the direction of American policy in the Middle East" and to become "the political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement."

According to its executive director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street is neither pro- nor anti- any individual organization or other pro-Israel umbrella groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). He says J Street is proud of AIPAC's many accomplishments and emphasised that the two groups have different priorities rather than different views.

Explaining the need for a new advocacy and lobbying group, Ben-Ami stated: "J Street has been started, however, because there has not been sufficient vocal and political advocacy on behalf of the view that Israel's interests will be best served when the United States makes it a major foreign policy priority to help Israel achieve a real and lasting peace not only with the Palestinians but with all its neighbors."

Alan Solomont, one of the founders of J Street and a former national finance chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and currently a Democratic Party fundraiser, described the need for J Street in the following way: "We have heard the voices of neocons , and right-of-center Jewish leaders and Christian evangelicals, and the mainstream views of the American Jewish community have not been heard."

Does J Street really represent mainstream opinion?

Journalist David Suissa was sparing in compliments about the new lobby
"Well, yes, but J Street has put a fresh coat of paint on this fixer-upper. They’ve mastered the art of preaching mind-numbing clichés and making it look like they’ve found the Holy Grail.
Let’s look, for example, at the cliché that “consistent and concerted diplomatic engagement” — a euphemism for pressuring Israel — has a positive impact on the peace process. A good example of this engagement has been the demand on Israel to freeze all its settlement construction, a policy that J Street actively promotes." Suissa claims the Palestinians didn't ask for a settlement freeze till J Street started pushing the idea.

The article in The Economist entitled "J Street puts a foot in the door," asks
"Can a handful of peaceniks challenge the power of AIPAC?"

"Unlike AIPAC, J Street intends to push aggressively for a two-state solution based on Israel’s pre-1967 borders." Further on the author relates to the negative response to J Street. "In print and in the blogosphere, in America and Israel, foes have excoriated J Street for having called for an immediate ceasefire during last year’s Gaza war, paying excessive heed to Richard Goldstone’s report accusing Israel of war crimes, making room at its conference for people who do not support the Zionist idea of a Jewish state, and other alleged heresies against the orthodox line of Israel’s traditional supporters in America.

If this flood of denigration was intended to drown J Street at birth, it seems to have failed. Israel’s Likud-led government may have stayed away from its conference, but its president, Shimon Peres, and Tzipi Livni, the leader of its opposition Kadima party, expressed their support"

Well J Street has definitely planted a foot in the door. Yet it remains puny compared to AIPAC. The new organisation has an annual budget of around $3m and a handful of staff. AIPAC has an annual budget of around $60m, more than 275 employees, an endowment of over $130m and a new $80m headquarters building on Capitol Hill.

Looking ahead The Economist claims, "Beyond the disparity in resources, Jeremy Ben-Ami now faces the nightmarish job of retaining the loyalty of the doves who flocked to this week’s conference without alienating mainstream Jewish opinion in America. This requires some contortions."

The pro – Israel lobbies didn’t really concern Israelis this week. Fox News was first with the scoop about a breakthrough in the negotiations for the release of Gilad Shalit. According Fox and a number of Arab news sources the unnamed German negotiator had managed to convince Israel and Hamas to rearrange the prisoner exchange list thereby raising hopes for an exchange deal that would end Shalit’s long incarceration in Gaza. Following negotiations conducted separately with Israel and Hamas representatives in Cairo a Hamas delegation flew to Damascus to report to the more extremist Hamas in exile branch for final approval. According to the reports the exchange would coincide with the Muslim holiday Id al-Adha which begins on Friday.

Today the pan-Arab newspaper Al-Sharq al-Awsat stated that the exchange had been deferred till after the holiday which ends on Monday.

The Israeli cabinet maintained a very low profile regarding the Shalit exchange claiming that excessive chatter was counterproductive. Our news media people and analysts have been quoting Arab sources as their only channel of information. Of course everyone in Israel is anxious to free Gilad Shalit but some people aren’t prepared to pay the price.

According to Al-Sharq al-Awsat Israel will release a total of 1,150 Palestinian prisoners in the deal, in three stages: First, Israel will free 450 hard-line terrorists, after which Shalit will be transferred to Egypt; Israel will then release the rest of the prisoners in two stages, after which Shalit will be brought to Israel.

Israelis who oppose the exchange deal claim the release of so many hard – line unrepentant terrorists will spark off a wave of Palestinian terror attacks.

In the past many released hard-line terrorists became active again after their release.

After negotiating for more than three years it’s clear that holding out for a better deal won’t help Gilad Shalit.

Al-Sharq al-Awsat claims that the Tanzim leader Marwan Barghouti, Ahmad Sadat, a leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and Ibrahim Hamed, the former commander of Hamas' military wing and the mastermind behind the 2002 terror bombing at the Moment cafe in Jerusalem will be released as part of the deal.

In an interview with Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera on Wednesday, Barghouti said he hopes to be freed as part of the Shalit deal, and intends to run for president in Palestinian elections next January.
If Barghouti is released in the prisoner exchange, reasons Ha’aretz, it could have far-reaching strategic implications on internal Palestinian balance of power, and attempts to strike a peace deal with Israel.

Have a good weekend.

Beni 26^th of November, 2009