Israel J-Street Double Speak

With world opinion generally critical of Israeli actions and the large majority of the Arab world opposed to the Jewish state, Israel takes the friends it can get. However, Israel is still involved in a tiff with the self-titled pro-Israel, pro-peace lobby J Street. Some Israeli officials, such as ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren, have recently expressed their desire to meet with the group and maintain an open dialogue. Other members of the Netanyahu administration, such as Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, snub the group and publicly descry its positions.

Similarly, J Street calls itself a pro-Israel lobby and continues to rankle feathers in the country it supports. The group invited some questionable speakers to its convention, recently completed a tour of the Middle East where much of the time was spent in the Palestinian territories and Jordan, and signed onto a letter organized by members of Congress critical of Israel.

How do we evaluate this complicated and important relationship? Is either the Israeli or J Street position an intrinsic oxymoron? Is either group stepping beyond its bounds to criticize and delegitimize the other?

First, let’s start with the Israeli position on J Street. If J Street’s agenda, in a utilitarian view, hurts the Jewish state more than it helps, then Israel might consider keeping the group at a distance. Conversely, if the group, in a broad sense, furthers the interests of Israel, then the Netanyahu administration should keep J Street close, if not consider it an ally.

What about J Street? If the group is truly convinced that it puts Israel and peace at the top of its agenda, then the group should maintain its moniker and continue to attempt and forge a relationship with the Israeli government. Conversely, if the group places its view of human rights (such as some so-called pro-Palestinian positions), then the group should limit its description to pro-peace, accept its distanced relationship with Israel, and move on.

So, where are we now.

J Street is a legitimate pro-Israel organization that pushes an agenda opposed by some, if not most, members of the Netanyahu administration. But, some other very influential Israeli leaders have positions similar to J Street’s. For example, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and opposition leader Tzipi Livni have supported a two state solution in the past and opposed settlement construction. Neither politician is considered anti-Israel. Quite the contrary, both have devoted their lives to public service, particularly in the clandestine services, where they held senior posts in the Shabaq (FBI equivalent) and Mossad (CIA equivalent).

Moreover, J Street’s intentions are driven by what it views are Israel’s best interests. The group supports the peace process because Israel would benefit from an end to the conflict that would bring security and economic stability to the region.

Israel’s position on J Street is understandable and exemplifies a common mind-set in the country. Some Israelis welcome criticism as an opportunity for growth, while other Israelis contend that the country has enough enemies and that supporters should keep criticisms on Israel to a minimum. In fact, I’ve been accused of being both too soft and too harsh on Israel, with the latter accusation followed by requests to keep my opinions “inside the family” as opposed to airing grievances for the world to hear.

Assuredly, if the left wing in Israel regained control of the government, J Street would be welcome – or even embraced – as pushing the same agenda as the ruling party. However, the current government cannot welcome J Street into its mist without recognizing that the group is generally more in line with the opposition parties. J Street is not anti-Israel, but it is by no means pro-Netanyahu and that is the root of the Israel-J Street double speak dance.