48 thoughts on “J Street and the Death of Liberal Zionism – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. Well, Richard, I’m not one who likes to say I told you so, but I did a long time ago. I’m glad to see you’ve seen the light. I didn’t realize you had so early on.

    From the beginning JStreet has been nothing but a self-congratulatory ego gig for Luria, ben Ami and their friends. It has never accomplished anything. Actually, I don’t think it ever intended to do anything but try to take some heat away from Aipac and the lobby. Early on they admitted to me they were definitely a part of the lobby. By continuing to push for a two state solution, which any thinking person knows is dead, they are on the wrong side of history. And featuring guests like Dennis Ross is the give away. Why don’t they invite the rest of the neocon cabal while they’re at it?

    1. Any thinking person knows a two state solution is dead? What exactly do you think is the most likely scenario? A one state solution?

        1. And how do you suggest such a thing will happen? Will Israel fully absorb the West Bank and Gaza? Will there be a completely new state, perhaps one that is not even a parliamentary republic?

          1. Will Israel fully absorb the West Bank and Gaza?

            Oh, yeah, now THERE’s a really just solution!

            Will there be a completely new state, perhaps one that is not even a parliamentary republic?

            How interesting what choices you choose to present and not present. What about a completely new state that does not by definition create an elite tier and lower tiers of citizens by explicitly defining itself in terms of a specific ethnicity or religion. What about a completely new state that is explicitly for all its citizens equally regardless of ethnicity or religion? In other words, how about a state that is not Jewish, or Arab, or Muslim, or Christian, or Druze, but a secular, pluralistic democracy? Have you thought about that possibility at all?

          2. Nope. The other way around. Palestine will absorb all of Israel. There will then be one state for two peoples – if the the Israelis are willing to remain.

          3. Shirin,

            Me: “Will there be a completely new state?”
            You: “What about a completely new state?”

            What the hell?


            How do you think that will happen? Natural population growth of Israeli Palestinians? Do you think they will eventually have the most seats in the Knesset? Or what?

          4. I seriously have no idea what you want from me. You are trying to find something that’s not there. Move on, I wasn’t trying to suggest anything. It was an honest question. The only possibility I did not include was the absorption of Israel by Palestine which honestly I can’t see as a possbility at all.

          5. I looked at it again, thinking maybe I mistyped something… but I still can’t find anything wrong with it. I listed the absorption of the West Bank and Gaza by Israel and the formation of a completely new state that might not be a parliamentary republic (what Israel is). Those are the only two possibilities I think are realistic.

          6. I think they are realistic but I don’t think either of them will happen. I don’t think a one state solution will happen at all. The most likely thing to happen is still a two state solution IMO.

      1. How about a three state solution.
        Israel remains in tact, Gaza goes back to the newly formed democracy in Egypt and The West Bank reverts back to Jordan.

      2. Shai,

        As a result of the policies that Israel has been pursuing in the occupied territories, the viability of a two-state solution has taken a serious battering. This is mostly because of the obvious thing – large-scale settlement expansion, facilitated by the lucrative financial incentives that the Israeli government offers to settlers. However, there are other significant reasons why a just two-state solution will be very hard to reach – most notably the ongoing plunder of the OPT’s natural resources.

        Water is the best example here. Israel controls every aquifer in the West Bank. Eighty per cent of the water supply is piped directly into Israel, ten per cent goes to the settlements, and the Palestinians are sold what remains at highly inflated prices. Israel is being very reckless with the aquifers and the damage is significant. It may soon be permanent – if this continues, in ten years’ time the water will be too contaminated for use. And this is the water supply that Israel would leave for the future Palestinian state. There are plans to build desalination plants in order to serve the Israeli population – but what about the people here? Where would their water come from? They would have to buy it in from Israeli desalination plants, at prices set by Israel. The new Palestinian state would remain a captive market, and not just for water. There is a real risk that the oppressive economic policies currently used to keep the OPT in its impoverished condition will be embedded in the two-state solution, making it just a formalised continuation of the occupation’s ill effects. It’s difficult to see how that risk can be reduced successfully.

        Personally I think that a one-state solution would be best economically and also morally. Division and segregation have been used to fuel the conflict, so it seems paradoxical to me that separation would be offered as part of the solution. It’s never helped anybody. I don’t want a wall to be between me and my Israeli friends in Jerusalem, but I don’t want an international border to be between us either. I want to be able to get on the bus on the spur of the moment and just visit. That would be a happier way to live.

        1. As a result of the policies that Israel has been pursuing in the occupied territories, the viability of a two-state solution has taken a serious battering.

          It’s taken more than a serious battering, Israel has killed it. But that was always the plan. Since the Partition Resolution Israeli leaders have been bent on preventing a Palestinian state from coming into being, and that certainly did not change after 1967. What changed then was that they had more power to make sure there could be no Palestinian state, and set about establishing facts on the ground that would obviate it.

    2. In my many years, I have often noticed that those who don’t like “to say I told you so” often do call upon those very words. But that is neither here nor there so much as the possibility that J Street, so thunderingly quiet in the face of one Israeli outrage after another, is. Mr. Schulman, indeed simply another diversion to make critics of AIPAC and such feel better and believe that a valid dialogue on the Israeli-Palestinian issue is occurring and might actually produce something positive. As to any thinking person knowing a two-state solution is dead, does it then mean that that same oracular thinker recognizes that there already is a one-state solution [sic] called Israel? Of course, it’s a rather uncomfortable state for a very large number of its inhabitants. I frankly at this point see no solution short of Israel’s chief patron, the U.S., stepping in boldly and effectively wielding a very large truncheon against the Settlement Movement, etc. Obviously nothing like this will happen, and Israel will continue to proceed with its facts-on-the-ground modus operandi, which has apparently become the DNA of Zionism. Seize and hold territory against whatever moral and legal arguments counter said seizure, and eventually all will be forgotten and even forgiven, or seen as downright Biblical and thus acceptable.

      1. Israel will continue to proceed with its facts-on-the-ground modus operandi, which has apparently become the DNA of Zionism.

        The facts-on-the-ground modus operandi has not become the DNA of Zionism, it has been the DNA of Zionism since the beginning of the colonization of Palestine. It was the DNA of Zionism when the state was created, and well before. It is clear from historical Zionist writings, and even more clear from historical Zionist actions.

        1. Perhaps I stand corrected. I just never thought of Zionism from its inception through its progression(s) as a monolith. Thus I believe that its adherents really covered quite a moral and political range from left to right, as has been so documented. On the other hand, given what has transpired through the years, everything from the Balfour Declaration to the conflicts of the 1920s to the Holocaust, it does seem that Zionism as movement and philosophy, despite individual adherents believing and functioning otherwise, has fundamentally adopted facts-on-the-ground as its core strategy.

          1. It wasn’t/isn’t a monolith. However, there are certain core strategies that have been part of mainstream Zionism from the beginning throughout its history until now. The facts-on-the-ground strategy is one of them, and “transfer” is another.

            As for range from “left to right”, remember that it was the “left” that planned and executed the expansion and ethnic cleansing operations of 1948 in Palestine, and 0f 1967 in the West Bank (including Ea. Jerusalem) and the Golan Heights. The 1967 Alon Plan for the systematic expropriation and colonization of the Occupied Palestinian Territories – i.e. for the creation of facts on the ground intended to obviate the creation of a Palestinian state – came from the “left”. And as we used to say, Likud talks about building settlements, but it is Labor that actually builds them.

            The main difference between left and right is one of image, not reality.

            As for the names that always come up, Ahad Ha’am, etc., they were very much outliers and not part of the mainstream of Zionism, or Zionist thought in regard to the land, its indigenous peoples, or the rights of those peoples.

          2. I don’t think you’re right in one particular. In his day, Ahad HaAm was a very influential figure as were Buber, Magnes, etc. I think what happened is that the movement largely went in a diff. direction & left their views behind. But I think there were important junctures where things might’ve gone differently, but didn’t. And I’m a firm believer in everything old becoming new again. The ideas of these thinkers will become more viable & credible the worse things become for contemporary Zionism. I don’t think we’re going to end up w. an outcome that will reflect fully the Brit Shalom vision. But they will have an impact over the coming years that they haven’t had in decades.

          3. I can’t agree. Ahad Ha’am, Martin Buber and Judah Magnes are mentionable historical figures precisely because they were outside the mainstream, and because they failed to alter Zionism’s trajectory. They stood out less because they were influential than because they represented a very different take on Zionism, and clearly did not influence enough Zionists sufficiently to change the direction that Zionism had been headed in from the beginning.

          4. Yes, we don’t agree on this one. But I maintain that in the longer view of Zionist history they will take a place of honor. They didn’t win in their day, but in future Israel will more closely resemble their vision than they ever could’ve imagined.

      1. I’ve never believed J-Street was a shill for AIPAC. I also do not believe it is a group that has lost its way. It has always appeared obvious to me that J-Street was a group of typical “liberal” Zionists who want to have their cake and eat it too while making themselves feel good and virtuous in the process.

      2. Ah, Richard. J Street hasn’t lost its way. The trail is well marked. My comments about J Street are no more nonsensical than those I’ve made about Obama. Both know exactly what they are doing. Both are inimical to peace. You can keep believing if you want. I don’t.

  2. Glad to see you recognizing J-Street for what it has always been.

    Oh, and if so-called “liberal Zionism” is dead, then I will celebrate, not mourn. “Liberal Zionism” has always been about holding onto the spoils while pretending to care about the victim of the theft. I had my fill of “liberal Zionism” around the time the second Intifada started.

  3. If I may state the obvious, given that J Street bills itself as “Pro-Israel and pro-peace,” of course it is going to have a litmus test. You seem to think that the litmus test should only be “pro-peace,” but if J Street is the least bit honest in its advertising, it has to enforce the “pro-Israel” part, too. JVP, to take one example, is not a “pro-Israel” organization, and indeed explicitly welcomes anti-Zionists into its fold.

    1. You seem to think that the litmus test should only be “pro-peace,”

      Not at all. I’m “pro-Israel,” but my definition of being pro Israel is different than J Street’s or yr typical liberal Zionist. I believe that being pro Israel means ensuring Israel’s long term security through a real, viable peace agreement & that this is the ONLY way to create peace. And I believe anyone who vacillates or temporizes as J Street does doesn’t do Israel any favors.

      JVP is certainly “pro Israel.” But it isn’t a Zionist organization. Nor is it a Palestinian nationalist organization. Nor does it have to be either to have the best interests of Israel and Palestine at heart.

      1. Here’s a good test for whether you are both “pro-peace” and “pro-Israel.” For every hour you spend criticizing Israel and people who support it for not being sufficiently pro-Israel, how many minutes do you spend criticizing those who are, in fact, anti-Israel. If the answer is “less than five”, as, e.g., seems true on this blog, and certainly with JVP, than you are not pro-Israel. If your answer is, I can’t identify anyone of any significance who is anti-Israel, than you are not pro-Israel. You only have to read the comments on, say, Mondoweiss, to find that there is a significant constituency, even in the U.S., that is not simply anti-Israel in ANY logical sense, but anti-Semitic.

        1. (Relatedly, saying “I’m pro-Israel” because if Israel only followed MY policies, all would be hunky-dory, isn’t really pro-Israel, it’s rather a sign of hubristic overconfidence in one’s own ideological premises.)

        2. People who leave nasty anti-Semitic comments on blogs do not usually have the power to demolish Jewish houses, evict the populations of entire Jewish villages, seriously limit Jewish educational opportunities, hamper Jewish attempts to find work (with the result that most Jews are in menial jobs), and prevent Jews from travelling about freely where they wish. If those commenters did have that power, I would expect Richard to give them equal airtime. But they don’t.

          They’re also irrelevant to the struggle for justice in Palestine. Genuine peace activists object to Israeli policies not because they are formulated by Israeli Jews, but because they cause millions of people to suffer. What matters is the suffering, not the ethnicity and religion of the people drafting the policies. Unfortunately supporters of those policies tend to do their very best to conflate Judaism with Zionism and criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. These are false parallels, designed to neuter the peace movement, and they don’t reflect its make-up at all.

  4. I’m sorry to spoil the party.
    We’ve lived and thrived in Israel with the Arab boycott before the state even existed, let alone “occupied” Palestinian land in 1967. We will continue to thrive even if some Jews will join them.

      1. Even as a joke it is not great. I’m happy to be not among Ruth’s mispocheh (sp. a la Rosten).

  5. Im with Gene and Shirin on this one. I support the Right of Return of the Palestinian people. Palestine is too small for both its true owners and the colonialists, and the colonialists will have to exercise their right of return, just like the French in Algeria. I hope that by next year, J Street will formally adopt the BDS position

    1. Palestine is too small for both its true owners and the colonialists

      I don’t know if you’re a troll, provocateur, or just plain stupid. Either way, I find yr comment offensive & if you keep up the nonsense you’ll be heading into oblivion here soon.

      I knew the name rang a bell. So you are an idiot provocateur using the name of an executed Nazi and laughing & tittering to all of your pro-Israel rightists friends in the process. Sorry chum, you’re history.

      1. Good for you, Richard, that you identified the self-chosen i.d. of the blogger “Oswald Pohl”. What kind of creep would use that name as his id? Incredible, really! And truly sick, perhaps a person more to be pitied than contemned.

        1. I’m sorry to say it’s quite common online. The Jewish far-right thinks this is a really witty way to disparage their “enemies” by accusing them of consorting with Nazis thus they take the names of dead Nazis & write outrageous cmmments to which they can themselves point as examples of how extreme the blog & its readers are.

  6. Thanks for the summary on the J Street conference. It really sounds like the movement has trouble knowing who it is. I wonder if finances play a role in this. I am assuming they have to keep their centre-right supporters happy somehow to avoid losing their support just to be able to stay in business. I agree though, they risk becoming irrelevant if they don’t change. Someone there needs to take a few brave steps.

  7. I plan on attending the upcoming J Street conference because I live virtually across the street. I am doing it out of curiosity since I am pleased that there is some alternative to the regressive AIPAC but I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Silverstein on his assessment of where J Street is going if they don’t stop walking down the middle of a deadly highway. I get a general sense that the leadership just likes to hobnob with the political elite in the US and Israel but have no coherent plan and will just disappear if they don’t reset.
    I have relatives in Israel and my aunt and two young cousins were murdered in Auschwitz in the Hungarian Holocaust. I am a US Air Corps veteran of WW II and feel that the US must disengage our foreign policy from Israel. It has brought us nothing but failure and trouble. I am ashamed of the Jewish neocons and neolibs who have turned their backs on the great Jewish tradition of peace on earth and love of their fellow man.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *