The Volokh Conspiracy

Maybe the best analogy of J-Street is Jews for Jesus. Just as the latter tries to expand the definition of Jew to mean Christian for all intents and purposes, so the former tries to expand the definition of “pro-Israel” to include being objectively anti-Israel. It’s a semantic ploy, although not a clever one.
That said, is it worth all the commentary on the blogosphere? Does J-Street have the slightest constituency or influence? Does it have any legitimate prospect of getting one? In one sense the commentary, even critical, reflects a desire to critically address a different viewpoint, which I guess is an improvement over reading a dissenting view out of the marketplace of ideas. On the other hand it does seem to needlessly inflate an aberrant position. There is always going to be a self-selected market for the anti position on college campuses and so forth. That market has nothing to do with the organization itself. But there is a line where the desire to engage even a potentially insidious position becomes somewhat alarmist. Not sure myself where the line is drawn, but on the internet it’s always helpful to remember the old adage of not making mountains out of molehills.

J Street is simply using the term Kadima with the same accuracy that it uses Likud, but in reverse. Likud=AIPAC=Republican=Neocon=anathema whereas Kadima=DNC or to the left of DNC=on the side of the angels. J Street’s use of either label has little or nothing to do with the actual positions or actions of Likud or Kadima.

Recently in the the Jerusalem Post, Livni was willing to give J Street some cover. One suspects she did so for purely partisan reasons, to slam Bibi for Ambassador Oren’s decision not to attend the J Street gathering. If Kadima were in office, one suspects that J Street would be slamming Kadima as well.

David, you may not agree with my characterization of AIPAC, but a substantial number of American Jews do and it’s that perception (true or not) that matters. And that is why JStreet is appealing. 

By Crazy Street’s own admission, J Street’s appeal among American Jews who want to consider themselves pro Israel is limited to those who can’t be bothered to investigate factsm and who would rather play partisan politics than cooperate with Repbublicans to protect Israel from countries that would like to see it turned into a heap of radioactive ashes. This fits well with the NJDC agenda, as we saw last fall when the NJDC and J Street used threats, lies and intimidation to force the disinvitation of Sarah Palin to a bi-partisan event. “Republican” or “Likud” have become the equivalent of “counter revolutionary.”

Alexia:
After 30 odd years, I’m still not convinced that Israel’s defense equates to self-defense. Sorry.I don’t believe we should pump tax money into any foreign country, including but certainly mot limited to Israel.If David wants to send a portion of his paycheck there, then good for him.I’m not so keen on him demanding that I do the same, however. And really, can you really in good conscience attack a commenter for being obsessed with Israel when he responding to a post about Israel that appeared on a legal blog?Really, we’d be happy not to talk about Israel. Go ahead — insert “anti-semite” comment here. Because obviously fiscal conservatives hate everyone based on race and faith, right?

Huh? The point is the relevance of Israel — and the grounds on which people, right and left, defend or attack it — to a blog heavy on political theory. It’s not an unreasonable topic. And, believe it or not, it’s possible to be agnostic in assessing Israel’s conduct and still be concerned with how the issue is treated. (After twenty-five and 2/5ths odd years, I’m confident that Israel isn’t the paradigm of a virtuous liberal democracy.) And what I see from the left both here and abroad is a tendency to presume Israel guilty for roughly the same reasons they presume that rich people oppose nationalized healthcare because they want poor people to die.

Me? I’d prefer it if Israel were a non-issue, but that could only happen if it were poorer, tribal and more uniformly brown-skinned. There’d be more violence, but it wouldn’t make headlines.

Anyway, I didn’t “attack” anyone, and I’m not interested in who is or isn’t an antisemite.

I wonder if the observation “We don’t want to be defined as a left wing organization” is precisely the same as the assertion “We are not a left wing organization.”

I also wonder if Kadima is in fact the middlish party that was described at its inception, or whether it was rapidly co-opted by existing political groups who saw that there was incremental political power to be had.

Matthew Yglesias is the poster boy for Jstreet, and I recall he vehemently attacked the Kadima government’s actions in Lebanon in 2006.

You cannot claim to be pro-Israel if you deny its right to self-defense.

Alexia thinks there’s something wrong with “a post about Israel that appeared on a legal blog”. Is this a legal blog? The ‘About’ statement reads, in full, “The Volokh Conspiracy is a group blog. Most of us are law professors.” I read that as fair warning that legal issues are likely to be prominent, but no promise to avoid other subjects.

I think that when J-Street refers to Kadima, they mean the Kadima of several years ago and its now abandoned–or at least suspended–disengagement policy of uprooting at least far-flung settlements and withdrawing behind unilaterally determined security lines. That policy was killed by the Gaza rocket fire, and I think, Sharon’s stroke. Recall that this really was a “centrist” policy. The right of the so-called Likudniks, neocons, whatever, strongly objected to this policy which is why Sharon had to leave the Likud and form Kadima. The left, which had been demanding withdrawal for years, was against it because it was not achieved by negotiations. Hamas and the PA initially opposed it on the same basis, but changed their tune to claim “victory” when the withdrawal became inevitable.

There is a case (that Sharon made) for a strategic withdrawal to defensible borders thereby improving security and saving the blood and treasure necessary to police the West Bank and Gaza. Rockets are the obvious fly in that ointment, though arguably operations like Cast Lead (or the threat thereof)could provide sufficient deterrence. No doubt this was Sharon’s view. (I think that, like Nixon going to China, he was the only Israeli political figure capable of pulling this off. It is my personal belief that both Hezbollah and Hamas would have been more cautious in their provocations if Sharon, rather than former members of Peace Now, had remained in charge.)

So, my long-winded point is that there is a pro-Israel, pro-Zionist position that is for disengagement that is at least partially congruent with the “anti-occupation” position. I see nothing wrong with a U.S. lobbying group that takes the position that we should encourage, and provide financial assistance or incentives for Israel to continue with a plan of disengagement. 

I note that numerous pro-Israel Americans were strongly opposed to Sharon’s plan. Yet unlike some of the epithets I see thrown at those who remain in favor of disengagement, there were no suggestions that one could not be “pro-Israel” without supporting the Israeli government policies of the moment.

Personally, I would like to see a lobby that supported disengagement and worked to design the incentives and guarantees that might help Israel disentangle itself from the West Bank. I really do think that this is the first step towards peace and should be implemented with or without negotiations with the PA. Everyone is “pro-peace.” The question is how to get there.

(In my mind, the PA is in a political trap of being unable to accept compromise and foisting self-rule on them may be the only way to break the impasse. While I do not think Hamas’ rule of Gaza should be “recognized” it is clear that they are keeping the rockets relatively quiet and, with the responsibility of rulership, are being forced to come down on challenges from even more “jihadist” factions.)

I agree, however, that J-Street has not defined itself as a “Kadima” disengagement lobby, either in this sense or any other I can see.

So, my long-winded point is that there is a pro-Israel, pro-Zionist position that is for disengagement that is at least partially congruent with the “anti-occupation” position. I see nothing wrong with a U.S. lobbying group that takes the position that we should encourage, and provide financial assistance or incentives for Israel to continue with a plan of disengagement. 

it might be a “pro zionist” approach for a us lobbying group to lobby for a policy that is not what the sitting Israeli government wants, but its not “Pro Israel” by definition.

I note that numerous pro-Israel Americans were strongly opposed to Sharon’s plan. Yet unlike some of the epithets I see thrown at those who remain in favor of disengagement, there were no suggestions that one could not be “pro-Israel” without supporting the Israeli government policies of the moment.

did any of those pro-israel americans lobby the US government to try and stop sharon’s plan? If they did, they are no longer pro-israel. There’s a fundamental difference in being personally against Israel’s policies and lobbying a foreign country (aka the US) against them.

Comp Sci Phd wrote:

it might be a “pro zionist” approach for a us lobbying group to lobby for a policy that is not what the sitting Israeli government wants, but its not “Pro Israel” by definition.

I guess AIPAC isn’t pro-Israel by your definition, because it’s well documented to have lobbied *against* Labour and Kadima policies, of removal of settlements, negotiations, and/or disengagement, when those parties were in power. That is not a useful definition of “pro Israel”.

please show the documentation where they lobbied the US govt to pressure Israel not to do those things? Until you do, I stand by my statement that they didn’t lobby the US to be against Israel’s policies.

Comp Sci Phd:

“it might be a “pro zionist” approach for a us lobbying group to lobby for a policy that is not what the sitting Israeli government wants, but its not “Pro Israel” by definition.”

I almost made that distinction in my already too long post above, but ended up rejecting it. Given what at least some spokesman for J-Street say, it is arguably more accurate to say they are pro-Zionist (or just Zionist), rather than pro-Israel for the reasons you state. But I think it might be too fine a distinction. I think one can be “pro-American” even while fundamentally disagreeing with the president or party in power. At least as J-Street defines the words, I think pro-Israel/pro-Zionist is a distinction without a difference. I do agree that making the distinction for analytic purposes may be useful, but do not see it as criticism of what J-Street is purportedly trying to do.

I also think you are correct that AIPAC itself did, at least after the fact, applaud the Gaza withdrawal. If, however, you are willing to conflate AIPAC with some neocons, some right-wing or Zionist pundits (as authors who will remain nameless are all too willing to do) then a good part of the so-called “Israel Lobby” did oppose the Gaza withdrawal. 

While I think this is a stark example that the thesis of a monolithic lobby is untrue, it would be still reasonable to seek to organize versus those non-AIPAC elements, but distinguish one’s opposition by doing so from a Zionist perspective. Personally, I think a think-tank or group-blog would be more appropriate to provide this opposition, but apparently they have greater ambitions.

From everything I am reading, however, the thing is coming apart at the seams, because the Zionism is not quite bona fide for at least some the people attracted to the organization. I think this is a shame as I see room for–at least in your terms–a pro-Zionist lobby that does not necessarily in favor of a current Israeli government. As I said above, there is currently a good deal of incentive for both the left and right to sell the idea that supporting Israeli policy is the only way to be Zionist. It would be a shame if people become convinced this is true.

stash: Comp Sci Phd:
I think one can be “pro-American” even while fundamentally disagreeing with the president or party in power.

agreed. but if one were to lobby a foreign government against the current US government’s policies, one is no longer “Pro American”. If one believes in “America” there is a place for that lobbying to occur and it’s in the US through the political mechanisms in place here. If one were to lobby countries in the UN against the sitting US government’s policies, they are no longer pro-american in my book. That is not the proper venue to try to change american policy.

Someone who is actually Pro-Israel doesn’t try to change Israeli policy by the use of American force, but through the political will of the Israeli people themselves. I also strongly believe, perhaps a bit polemically, that any “zionist” who feels that it is ok to use American force to try and force Israel’s hand, is on some level a self hating, who really doesn’t believe in what they purport to believe in. If they did, they would be expending their effort on the Israeli government and population instead. From my vantage point, as they aren’t, this is indicative of the fact that they really do not believe in the state no matter what they might profess.