Comments on: American Jewish Left in Transition

By: MuzzleWatch » J Street Two-Step: Fights smear campaign, censors poets

MuzzleWatch » J Street Two-Step: Fights smear campaign, censors poets — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:06:54 +0000

[...] demanding a more open discourse about Israeli policy for liberal Zionists, while simultaneously drawing a line in the sand between that which is kosher and that which is treyf (unclean): Jewish-staters and Congressional [...]

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:40:02 +0000

I agree that it is a mixed bag. I've disagreed at times w Michael's views on Israel though I think we have respect for ea. other on that as he might disagree with mine as well. I don't know much about the composition of the Tikkun Community. But an editorial at Tikkun's site states that J Street refused Tikkun's involvement not because of any reasons you listed above (which might have some validity) but because supposedly J Street wanted to try a "new approach" not represented by Tikkun:

He [Ben Ami] acknowledged that you [Lerner] would bring some positives but he is convinced that your involvement would signal that this effort is not the fresh and new approach that he wants people to take as the ‘brand' of their conference

By: Kung Fu Jew 18

Kung Fu Jew 18 — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:28:36 +0000

I don’t speak for J Street, so I don’t know. In the past Brit Tzedek has accepted and declined doing events with Michael Lerner, Tikkun magazine, and the Network of Spiritual Progressives. Sometimes we have, sometimes we haven’t.

Tikkun is a mixed bag. On one side, Lerner himself is outspokenly Jewish and even-handed on Israel. On the other, Tikkun isn’t Jewish but rather an interfaith group led by a rabbi, as he’s described many times before. Many Tikkun/NSP people are avid Jews, but many have been involved with ISM and other “definitely not Jewish” activities. It’s a coin toss on whether they add credibility or detract.

Feel free to disagree. I always say that Tikkun/Lerner was my gateway drug to being a leftie.

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:35:24 +0000

JVP is being excluded due to a political principle. But what about Tikkun & Michael Lerner? What’s the political principle other than he has a large ego, a complicated public persona, & a history of criticizing his fellow members of the Jewish left? Is that a principle? Lerner represents tens of thousands of American Jews & you exclude him because he brings such baggage? I don’t get it.

By: Kung Fu Jew 18

Kung Fu Jew 18 — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:19:26 +0000

I don’t like it either and I soundly disagree with how the right-wing orgs seek to define it. The body of American Jews is not the same as the segment that lives in the Jewish communal bubble, which is also not the same as the broad communal leadership, which is not the same as the Jewish defense orgs. It’s a “who is more Jewish” game that’s rather noxious.

That said, this is politics. You pick a line in the sand on the bell curve of public opinion and decide “This is where I must be to generate enough credibility and yet not compromise my principles.”

It’s ugly. But if Brit Tzedek didn’t submit to the back-scratching bullshit of Capital Hill and if J Street didn’t buy their way into legislators’ pockets, then we’d be that much more screwed in trying to affect American foreign policy.

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 04:18:09 +0000

I’m very uncomfortable about this “inside” “outside” split we’re talking about. I understand that the right wing leadership of our community seeks to make this distinction because they are “inside” and the so-called extremists are “outside.” But let’s not make the mistake of believing that Abe Foxman, Howard Kohr or the rest will ever find J Street to be “inside.” To them, J Street will forever be “outside.” They make no distinction bet. J St. & JVP. They’re both the same to them. Perhaps they find J St. more dangerous because it aspires to be “inside” & therefore they reserve more opprobrium for J St.

But for Jewish progressives to adopt the same distinctions the leadership makes is most unfortunate. Why accept their terms & declare one group kosher and one trief? I’m sorry but I don’t like it.

By: trayf

trayf — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 22:29:18 +0000

I am proud to be one of KungFuJew’s JVP friends and largely agree with his characterization of JVP, though there are those of us in the organization who do more of our work on the “inside” of Jewish communities. I will also note that the Bay Area Jewish community where JVP orignated has a very different terrain than probably any other in the states. To restate JVP’s case in the affirmative, we have chosen an “agnostic” stance on the one state v. two state both as a matter of practicality (we are not in a position to immediately implement either) but also to be able to speak as a Jewish voice on certain issues such as divestment. This means often speaking to a non Jewish audience as Jews, and does compromise our effectiveness at speaking to Jews. It is a tradeoff we have been willing to make, but I believe there is much we and JStreet can learn from and complement each other.

By: Joel Beinin

Joel Beinin — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:29:11 +0000

J Street’s public statement about Neve Gordon’s BDS article in the L.A. Times was not only weak. It was self-serving and politically naive. When someone is being attacked by right wingers, the first thing you say, whether or not you agree with them, is that you uphold their rights to freedom of speech and academic freedom. That doesn’t go in a footnote. Then, if you feel compelled, as obviously J Street does, you can note your disagreement.

Moreover, J Street has no strategic disagreement with Neve Gordon. They both support two states. If that’s your objective, then it is very useful politically to have people out on your left demanding stronger sanctions on Israel unless it moves towards a meaningful two state solution. Merely calling for support for President Obama’s initiative, whose concrete contents aren’t even known yet, makes compromises with the Netanyahu government in advance. Even if Obama is very insistent, and based on his handling of the settlement freeze issue so far, there is no reason to think he will be, he won’t get Netanyahu to agree to all of what he might propose. So if Obama were to decide to be serious, it would be useful to him to have Jews calling for more stringent measures that he is willing to take to get Israel to accept a more fair deal for the Palestinians.

All of this, however, is hypothetical. The bottom line for J Street, as it is for Brit Tzedek and Americans for Peace Now and similar “liberal” Zionist groups is that under no circumstances should any sanctions be applied to Israel. So in the meantime, the Netanyahu government will go on building settlements, as the Obama administration expresses its firm disapproval. And the prospects for a two state solution that entails any significant expression of Palestinian national rights will become ever more negligible.