Who do you think J Street Director Jeremy Ben-Ami was talking about when he said this to the Washington Independent’s Spencer Ackerman:
We are deeply supportive of the diplomatic route. But if the diplomatic route is completely disregarded and the offer [rejected] — after probably ten or 20 warnings, they’re practically beyond saying no. They’re sticking a finger in the eye of the world. The U.S. has really tried to find a way to offer them a path to full engagement. There have to be consequences. We can’t just allow that kind of disregard of the international community.
Answer: Iran.
He was offering his justification for J Street’s support of Rep. Howard Berman’s Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act which would "would limit Iran’s ability to import and produce refined petroleum products by requiring the president to impose sanctions on companies helping Iran in these areas." Critics think the bill will only punish the Iranian people, and leave the Iranian government unscathed.
This exchange seemed especially ironic in light of J Street’s repeated efforts to undermine the grassroots boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement to hold Israel accountable for at least 42 years of Israeli intransigence in the face of the the international community (a bit more than "probably ten or 20 warnings"). And while they seem willing to back sanctions against the entire country of Iran, J Street has yet to offer the most basic form of accountability for Israel’s continued disregard for international law and US policy in the region other than to say that the US’s $3 billion a year in military aid "should not be on the table."
So which is it J Street – should countries that demonstrate "disregard of the international community" have consequences or not?
