Last night I went to Columbia University to see Omar Barghouti discuss his new book, Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: The Global Struggle for Palestinian Rights. For those who don’t know, Barghouti is one of the BDS movement’s most effective strategists and promoters, basing his advocacy on a platform of human rights and international law while explicitly rejecting arcane ideology. His book offers the most in-depth and accessible analysis to date of the movement, its history, and why it is gaining so much momentum. Read an excerpt here.
During his talk, Barghouti mentioned that he had approached J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami about arranging a debate on BDS. The response from Ben-Ami was as follows, according to Barghouti: “We want to keep this debate inside the Jewish community. So we won’t participate in a debate with any Palestinians.”
Barghouti joked, “Why would BDS have anything to do with Palestinians?” He went on to describe Ben-Ami’s policy as racist.
Last December, I debated the issue of BDS against the director of J Street U, Daniel May. My debate partner was Rebecca Vilkomerson of Jewish Voice for Peace. Daniel May’s partner was a Jewish student from Princeton also named Daniel May. Everyone involved in the debate was an Ashkenazi Jew, yet we were debating a movement founded and controlled by Palestinian civil society. If I had known at the time that J Street had an alleged policy of refusing to debate with non-Jews, especially Palestinians, I would not have participated at all.
Another person told me about J Street’s “don’t debate Palestinians” policy, but did not authorize me to report it at the time. The source explained that the policy resulted in the Jews-only debate at J Street’s annual policy conference in February, where Rebecca Vilkomerson debated in favor of BDS against opponents Bernard Avishai and Ken Bob of Ameinu.
It is worth noting that after the debate, Bernard Avishai took to his blog to tell a certain member of JVP (he left the person unnamed) that “you remind me, forgive me, of the Tea Party.” Avishai was apparently upset that the JVP member had asked him how he could argue against divesting from multinational companies and Israeli institutions that profit from the occupation while supporting a boycott of the settlements. It is unusual for someone of Avishai’s intellectual caliber to stoop so low to rebut a simple question about tactics. His response makes me wonder if the opponents of BDS, especially those who define themselves as politically liberal, are simply overwhelmed by events in Israel and Palestine.
To J Street’s credit, it is the only major pro-Israel group I know of that will debate BDS at all. None of the other established pro-Israel groups have participated in debates and none seem likely to do so in the near future. Last week, the Columbia University chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) responded to a demand by the campus Hillel house for a “dialogue session” by requesting a debate instead. SJP’s leadership told Hillel’s director that he could choose the topic, time and place of the debate. Hillel refused the proposal. Besides international law and human rights, what do they have to be afraid of?
This post originally appeared on Max Blumenthal's blog.
Imagine a US political group only willing to debate/discuss racism in America so long as no African Americans were invited. Didn’t that happen in apartheid S Africa? It’s interesting that establishment Jews in America take the same approach as Farrakan and David Duke. The difference is only that those Jews are not banished to the fringe of society; instead, they are square at the apex of top US society and power stations.
As time passes, J Street looks more and more like a strawman in the debate, especially since it’s been delegitimized by the Knesset. It’s time to go the third way and support JVP as the appropriate counterweight to AIPAC.
I agree. Jewish Voice for Peace strikes me as having far more integrity, honesty and focus than J-Street ever did.
It is a student organization who hates Israel. Go figure.
“”Besides international law and human rights, what do they have to be afraid of?”"
++++ Everything. If a house is build from deck of cards, it would fall like one. It would create a uncontrollable spin, which leads to fall, one by one. Everything.
Jabotinsky defined the J Street position in the 1920s.
“…. the Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are five hundred years behind us, they have neither our endurance nor our determination “
Jabotinsky defined the J Street position in the 1920s.
“…. the Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are five hundred years behind us, they have neither our endurance nor our determination “
Back in the day, a paternalistic attitude to Palestinians was pretty much the way Jews thought. Even Yizhak Epstein, the Zionist who eloquently argued during the same period to engage the Palestinians in dialog, viewed the natives with contempt. He spoke of the Palestinian farmers as “children who need to be nurtured.” (As a good pioneer, he completely ignores Palestinian urban culture).
Incidentally, Israel of today could learn a thing or two from the fascist Jabotinsky. He opposed legislating the country’s Jewishness. “A country’s identity is only what its citizens are. England is English because of the English, not because of any laws.”
Tell that to the Knesset and to the American Jewish community.
““We want to keep this debate inside the Jewish community. So we won’t participate in a debate with any Palestinians.”
Always important to expose racism where ever it exists
Max, did you contact Jeremy Ben-Ami to verify that is, indeed, the policy of J-Street?
I think J Street is far too “centrist”, and clearly supporting many thing, at least in their silence. Now I do not support their racism, but does anyone think it is a political tactic to keep more Jews in their ranks? Let’s face it…. the racism in the Jewish community is deep, and to increase their audience, they might prefer to keep the debate “Jewish”. A racist, small-minded, sellout approach, but I do find I need to profess my Jewishness to get Jewish attention often. And that attention usually lasts 30 seconds before the hasbara starts and I realize it will go nowhere….
I think the problem with Israel is that it has to be all or nothing. The whole idea of Israel is still so outrageous. So it has to have obedience from the whole of the Diaspora. Which means that it has to be run with an eye on sustainability. And it isn’t. J-Street either conforms or it gets ostracised. It is like Messianism. You have to believe. But then Israel is so far away from any set of values the outside world can support.
“But who tells the truth to the man who is driving straight into the setting sun and thinks he’s heading due east? His wife murmurs that, uh, maybe we should look at a map, and he accuses her of being a defeatist who tries to tear him down any way she can in order to conceal her own lack of ideas. The man is heading the wrong way and speeding and the idiot light is flashing — low oil pressure — and the idiot is trying to be manly and authoritative but everyone can see he’s faking it, hoping for G-d to rearrange the landscape for his convenience. Someone ought to speak up, and yet he is fascinating. As the administration is these days, so resonant and believable. The Arctic icecap melts and the Chinese finance our tax cuts and someday we will have spent six years and trillions of dollars to bring democracy to Iraq, whatever that may mean, and the SUV of state turns toward the setting sun, driven by cocker spaniels.And there is so much intensity there, and they are so much in the moment.”
See J Street’s: About Us page –
“The organization gives political voice to mainstream American Jews and other supporters of Israel who, informed by their progressive and Jewish values, believe that a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is essential to Israel’s survival as the national home of the Jewish people and as a vibrant democracy.”
Debating DBS with Palestinians would be against their stated goal.
Debating DBS with Palestinians would be against their stated goal.
no it would not. if the organization gives political voice to mainstream American Jews then they are perfectly placed to represent the position of mainstream american jews in countering palestinian civil society. it may go against their goals in that position to agree w/bds but not to debate it. in fact their natural opponent to the principle of bds is palestinians not aipac because on principle for the most part they stand w/aipac not against them.
i do not see how not facing or confronting their ideological opponent goes against their goal of giving political voice to mainstream American Jews one iota.
that said, it is obvious why they are doing it and it is the smartest move they could make. to debate palestinians gives bds legitimacy. it is a debate they would loose and they know it so there is no upside in debating it for them, none what so ever. even in the hasbara handbook they tell ‘when to walk away’. their position is morally untenable because there’s a tradition of shunning in the jewish community which is essentially no different than boycotting. they do it all the time so it’s not logical to argue against boycotting in general.
one could claim it is cowardly but the more logical conclusion is you just do not enter into a competition you know you can’t win.
ultimately it is a racist decision. by using the ‘conversation within the jewish community’ it presumes that conversation is supercedes the american conversation to the point no one else should have a voice. it is perfectly acceptable to REPRESENT the jewish voice in an american conversation but it is not acceptable to call bds a jewish conversation because it isn’t. bds is global. it is about israel’s relationship to the world.
there’s an upside in all of this and that is colleges and communities around the country should be holding debates about bds and about the american relationship with human rights, palestine and israel. lets start hearing palestinians voices and when the lobby complains it isn’t balanced tell them that’s their own fault if they don’t want to face palestinians in a debate. have the debate without them. let them have it with christian zionists if they are not on the lobbies leash. the lobby won’t stop bitching and moaning about bds they just won’t face palestinians in a public debate!
ha!
Annie,
J Street isn’t trying to convince Omar Barghouti against BDS. They are trying to convince the Jewish-American community and Congress to support whatever …
I don’t think debating Barghouti about BDS will help them further their goal. Don’t forget, J Street is a lobby. It does what all lobbies do, advocate their cause/interest to Congress. Barghouti has no power and advocates no policy J Street supports. J Street is trying to reach out to all of Congress and people who are open to their position. Barghouti has already made up his mind. Why should they have anything to do with each other?
there is a difference between saying you don’t think it will further their goal and saying what you stated previously which is what i argued against: Debating DBS with Palestinians would be against their stated goal.
you ask why should j street and barghouti have anything to do w/eachother? because j street is debating bsd so they will appear cowardly by an unwillingness to argue their position w/the head of the movement AND by refusing to engage palestinian voices they appear racist. don’t forget i already made this point:
that said, it is obvious why they are doing it and it is the smartest move they could make. to debate palestinians gives bds legitimacy. it is a debate they would loose and they know it so there is no upside in debating it for them, none what so ever. even in the hasbara handbook they tell ‘when to walk away’. their position is morally untenable because there’s a tradition of shunning in the jewish community which is essentially no different than boycotting. they do it all the time so it’s not logical to argue against boycotting in general.
one could claim it is cowardly but the more logical conclusion is you just do not enter into a competition you know you can’t win.
as an aside even tho j street is an american jewish org the moment you acknowledge they are trying to convince congress what you are really saying is they are trying to convince americans because (supposedly) we are congress. so you can’t really divorce congress from the american public. also, j street doesn’t limit it’s our reach to jewsih americans. i am asked to sign their petitions, i am asked for donations (which i gave them early on). they are not limited to the jewish american conversation anymore than aipac limits it’s outreach to jews, it absolutely doesn’t.
“The organization gives political voice to mainstream American Jews and other supporters of Israel
as long as they are giving voice to americans who agree with them and lobbying americans to agree with them and support them then limiting that conversation wrt bds, to solely the jewish community is disingenuous. they should either stay completely OUT of the bds debate, limit their scope and outreach to ONLY jews, or include the other parts of the american community whose support they want and lobby and raise funds from into the conversation.
Annie,
Who in Congress supports BDS? And second, if Jews are contemplating BDS, Barghouti isn’t the one who should represent them. This is why Ben-Ami said what he said as cited.
I agree with you that J Street has nothing to gain from debating BDS with Barghouti but for a different reason. You can say whatever you want about the moral superiority of BDS, but lobbies aren’t concerned with debating morality just because. J Street won’t be able to reach the people that it wants to reach if it appears that they are open to the idea of BDS.
It is primarily a Jewish lobby. Just because they reach out to everybody else, it doesn’t mean they should adopt other people’s ideas. J Street has already made clear its position on BDS. It won’t move unless Jewish Americans move towards BDS (that’s why they want to debate it internally). As long as it remains a sensitive issue to Jewish Americans, including the decision makers in J Street, they have no reason to compromise their standing in Washington for the sake of an intellectual pursuit, aka debate.
J Street isn’t simply a Jewish organization, its a lobby. This point is clearly stated on its website. Don’t be afraid to call it a Lobby and don’t act surprised when it acts like one.
And for goodness sake, please capitalize the first letter of each sentence. It would be so much easier to read.
what on earth gave you the impression i was afraid to call jstreet a lobby? are you offended i just call it jstreet and not the jstreet lobby? i used the words you posted See J Street’s: About Us page –
“The organization gives political voice to mainstream American Jews and other supporters of Israel who, etc etc etc . i can call them an org or jstreet or whatever. do not dictate to me needless crap simply for the purpose of establishing a rhetorical positioning in our conversation. got it?
And for goodness sake, please capitalize the first letter of each sentence.
let’s get one thing straight, i am not here to please you nor am i afraid of you or jstreet or whereever it is you came from. i engaged you over a false statement you make, you in turn offered me a strawman and pretended i said something else evading acknowledging debating bds was NOT AGAINST the stated goals of jstreet.
Who in Congress supports BDS?
this is a diversion. j street either does or doesn’t debate bds. they either do or do not engage in dialogue and debate w/non jews. using one policy of engagement wrt one issue alone selectively is inexcusable.
then they shouldn’t be debating it at all. having public debates and stating the won’t debate with palestinian americans is racist. you want an internal debate? then don’t blather about it all over the place! make it private. jstreet should not be engaging in public debates about issues central to our foreign policy we have to pay for while excluding other ethnicities. it is racist and unamerican.
Just because they reach out to everybody else, it doesn’t mean they should adopt other people’s ideas. J Street has already made clear its position on BDS. It won’t move unless Jewish Americans move towards BDS
no one is asking jstreet to adopt anyone else’s ideas merely to have the balls to argue theirs against a formidable opponent.to state their case, that is what people do in debates.
do you really think jstreet would move towards pro bds if american jews did? do tell. and what’s this hogwash of claiming barghouti is representing jews? he’s representing a movement, one jstreet sees fit to state a position about just unwilling to debate the head of that movement. a position they do not take on other matters.
it is racist. if they only represent american jews they should say so on their about us page otherwise they should include other non jewish voices in the conversation like they do at their conference.
I said “please”. Plus, I think it would help you communicate better with everyone on here.
“using one policy of engagement wrt one issue alone selectively is inexcusable.”
I don’t understand why this is “inexcusable”. There are something people don’t have to, and shouldn’t, debate with other people. For example, one shouldn’t debate one’s own existence with individuals, as an example. Of course, this isn’t BDS, but it is still sensitive. I assume we both respect Muslim’s sensitivity to people handle their Quran. I assume you also respect my sensitivity of how people handle a Torah Scroll (even though I’m not religious). I’m just bringing this up so you understand that different people have different sensitivities to different issues.
“jstreet should not be engaging in public debates about issues central to our foreign policy we have to pay for while excluding other ethnicities. it is racist and unamerican.”
BDS isn’t simply a foreign policy issue. For Jews, it is also an inter-communal issue. It’s personal. You don’t discuss family issues with the your neighbors. Because BDS deals with many layers of Jewish inter-communal issues, they/we will rather not debate it with others while it formulates a position. It’s has nothing to do with their identity as non-Jews or Palestinians. It’s about accurately voicing what Jewish Americans want, which is where J Street comes in as well as other organizations. But individuals like Alan Dershowitz can debate this with anyone because he doesn’t have to to deal with inter-Jewish politics while he pursues these intellectual exercises. How he formulates his position isn’t a consideration of multiple interests.
I think J Street’s identity as a Jewish organization is the most problematic. It limits itself from the beginning. It should just mention that it is an American Lobby that has a more nuanced position than AIPAC, in other words. Till it does that, J Street will continue to participate in inter-Jewish politics.
one shouldn’t debate one’s own existence with individuals
how illuminating
BDS isn’t simply a foreign policy issue. For Jews, it is also an inter-communal issue. It’s personal. You don’t discuss family issues with the your neighbors.
quit trying to weasel out of this. a j street guy debated max and rebeccaa and there was no mambsy pambsy dillydallying over personal family issues. it was a hard core debate, one that easily could have been carried out by a palestinian. j street just can’t bear to be seen getting their collective asses wipped by a palestinian. why? because noura erekat is right. because jews and israel are ‘inside’ and palestinians arabs and muslims are on the outside. just like at standford the pro israel team got trounced which is probably why there’s no video of it.
because apartheid is bad for business, occupation is bad branding, settlements are bad branding and israel is bad branding and there nothing that demonstrates that more than a good ol intellectual moral showdown between palestinians and jews, american or otherwise.
it is the conversation israel does not want america to see.
I assume we both respect Muslim’s sensitivity to people handle their Quran. I assume you also respect my sensitivity of how people handle a Torah Scroll (even though I’m not religious). I’m just bringing this up so you understand that different people have different sensitivities to different issues.
oh yada yada yada. spare us. this is politics and you know it, all politics is personal.
What I really want to say about Barghouti and J Street is that it will gain nothing politically from engaging with him about BDS. What will Congressman think when J Street asks them to support a letter to the President? What will American Jews think of J Street when it sees them engaging someone they believe wants to destroy Israel?
oh, the ol ‘destroy israel’ lingo eh. whatever. why oh why must hasbarists always resort to these stupid talking pts. they say the same thing about jvp but you’ll debate them..whatever, i’m not into these lame talking pts.
it’s been a slice michael.
‘conversation within the jewish community’
And all you who are children (or grandchildren) of mixed marriages or in mixed marriages cover one ear. Good, now that fairness has been achieved, let us begin the debate!
Ridiculous. And when Palestinians want to have a conversation that is internal to the Palestinian community, should we accuse them of racism when a Zionist demands to be included?
J Street, as an organization with limited resources, thinks right now that engaging on the very delicate topic of BDS (delicate in the mainstream Jewish community) that it can achieve it’s goals better by lending it’s names to events where the participants are Jewish. Who is Barghouti to suggest otherwise? Is he an expert in, or even concerned with J Street’s mission and how he might be helping or hinder it? Of course not.
Back when Brit-Tzedek v’Shalom was founded, the newly elected board made a decision not to allow any chapter to have any event where Palestinians or Arabs were to speak. This was part of the effort to ‘speak Jewishly’ and persuade the mainstream community to work with them. In time, this policy was softened, and when J Street began having public events it did a great job of arguing with the right, the left, other Jews, other non-Jews, etc. You can see this when they have someone like Mona Eltahawy speak at their conference in a plenary session.
Now along comes Omar Barghouti, tried to prod J Street into an event that serves his agenda. He is rebuffed, and blows the racism whistle. Pathetic. A better question is, why so much attention to J Street in the first place? Why not ask to debate AIPAC?
Precisely because J Street has been so open and willing to deal with the left wing of arguments around Israel/Palestine in comparison to any other major American Jewish organization. And so, the small tent coalition that seeks to kick out any actor on the field not deemed supportive enough of the BDS agenda comes along, tar and feathers in hand, and creates from whole cloth a pointless and damaging fight.
Unless of course, this is a brilliant strategy to persuade the pro-occupation forces in Jewish life that J Street is safe after all, because look! The ‘real’ BDS’niks hate them too. Hrm…. Well, at least such a view is entirely consistent with the conspiratorial ‘who benefits’ mindset so often expressed here.
(I think Jeremy made a mistake in ruling out a debate with ‘any Palestinians.’ But this isn’t racism, it’s a decision relevant to the goal of shifting the Jewish community so that it will be better able to pressure Israel.)
I think Jeremy made a mistake in ruling out a debate with ‘any Palestinians.’
Why? And (in the spirit of the season) why is this Palestinian different from all other Palestinians?
I think he made a mistake because it’s not so much about OB’s offer to debate, it’s about what J Street is up to right now. It was great debating this issue at the national conference, and it might happen that some J Street chapter decides to debate it again; but I don’t see how that conversation advances any of the initiatives they have going forward.
That said, if ever they did want to draw attention to this issue for some reason, I’d consider any ‘opponent’ as long as there is enough shared ground for it to be meaningful. JVP shares the goal of engaging with the Jewish community. There might be a Palestinian voice out there who would make a good person for such an event as well. OB is too much of an opponent of what J Street is doing to make for a good event partner.
and
Jeremy, never say never. Who knows what the future holds? You could just say ‘right now this doesn’t fit our agenda’ and be done.
So if I understand you correctly, clenchner, it’s not about whether J Street is a Jewish organisation or not, but about political tactics. The timing’s bad, the subject is uncomfortable, the speaker is even more uncomfortable, and “We want to keep this debate inside the Jewish community” was the best excuse Ben Ami could come up with, when Barghouti sprung the proposal on him.
I’ll give you an example. Barghouti was invited to a debate on BDS sponsored by the Jewish community of Turin – a relatively liberal community, but less liberal than J Street and certainly more heterogeneous. BDS is a Palestinian initiative in support of Palestinian rights. It made sense to have it presented by a Palestinian – especially one who happens to be a leader of the movement. Members of the community presented counter arguments, the audience asked some tough questions, the event was written up from various perspectives, and nothing terrible happened. The Jewish community didn’t cease being the Jewish community and the debate within the community was actually enriched (and no, not everyone was happy, but when are they?).
This is a charitable albeit unflattering interpretation of Ben Ami’s statement. I hope to God that he doesn’t really believe such nonsense.
I feel good that the Turin folks had him over to speak. Were I running a synagogue, I’d be happy to have him over and debate him myself.
it’s a decision relevant to the goal of shifting the Jewish community so that it will be better able to pressure Israel.
That ain’t gonna’ happen. Things got worse in 60 years, not better. You only need to look at the ignominious lock-step action in getting rid of the Goldstone Report, and demonizing its contents, to see how effectively moral that community wants to be. [I predict that years from now when the full history of the I/P issue is known outside of both 'communities' that this action against the Goldstone Report will be the American Jewish community's black eye. The sheer shabby small-mindedness of it. The depravity of its manufactured lie.]
The change that comes will be generational and global.
Clenchner –
As you surely know the American Jewish community outside of the Orthodox groups is now an inter-faith community.
Recently, I attended an event at a Conservative synagogue. As is the custom, the Holy Ark was flanked by the Stars and Stripes on the one side and the flag of the State of Israel on the other. There was a family sitting behind me. One of the children asked his dad what the Israeli flag was. He replied: “that’s the flag of Israel where everybody is Jewish.”
One of the assumptions that buttresses American Jewish community’s uncritical support for the State of Israel is the belief that the Jewish community is disappearing through assimilation but, if all else fails, Israel will guarantee future Jewish survival.
Both the assumption and suggested remedy are flawed.
All parts of the Jewish community are open to non-Jews: membership in synagogues, interfaith families, social circles.
But, per J Street, one are must be kept for Jews only: Israel. Because Israel is for Jews only?
This is a dangerous fantasy. It doesn’t serve Israelis or American Jews well. Its assumptions are out of date.
Let Israelis become more like American Jews and American Jews harmonize their stance on Israel with the rest of their American and Jewish values and identity.
Eliot, that was lovely. Loved that first sentence:”As you surely know the American Jewish community outside of the Orthodox groups is now an inter-faith community.” And there it is.
And frankly, stateing you will keep the debate “within the Jewish community” when you are the one who (right down to the individual) who determines who that is, is a really cheap trick. It’s not even worthy of a reply.
“when you are the one”
Editorial “you” not, of course, you, Eliot. Gosh I loved that first sentence: “As you surely know the American Jewish community outside of the Orthodox groups is now an inter-faith community.”
My God, we’ve been mogrelised!
Mooser – I got it :). I don’t know what the future holds for the American Jewish community – most likely the same as past Jewish communities: there will be assimilation in and out of the community.
What will make Judaism attractive is the ideas it represents. We are weakened as Jews by Israeli Messianic Jingoistic Judaism.
As is the custom, the Holy Ark was flanked by the Stars and Stripes on the one side and the flag of the State of Israel on the other.
Can anyone say just when this idolatry became the custom? I’m sure that it’s not done anywhere but in the flag-fetishing US.
Does anyone know of any other respectable religious denomination where there are flags at the altar, pulpit or elsewhere at the focus of worship?
I’ve seen flags in the Scottish church in Jerusalem. I think they were by the altar.
As for other denominations in the Sates, I’ve seen flags at Episcopalian and Catholic churches.
Regardless, I agree that flag worship in any setting is wholly inappropriate.
Putting the flag on the altar is an underhand way of getting folks to bow down to the flag. Even the government doesn’t make you do that.
when Palestinians want to have a conversation that is internal to the Palestinian community, should we accuse them of racism when a Zionist demands to be included?
since when is america’s special relationship with israel a ‘jewish conversation’? it isn’t. bds is not a jewish conversation. let american jews fork out the 3 billion a year! the palestinian conversation about bds is NOT internal to the palestinian community at all, if it were the palestinian community would be chastizing barghouti for even approaching j street. palestinians are out front and center willing to discuss this with anyone.
j street is afraid of bds. aipac is afraid of bds. israel is afraid of bds and that is why they will not debate it. they just want to whine about how wrong it is, they are not afraid to engage jvp because they think they have leverage to over other jews w/they’re slandering self hating jew speak but they don’t have that kind of leverage over palestinians. the rest of us get the anti semite accusation. it’s all smoke and mirrors and no meat.
Precisely because J Street has been so open and willing to deal with the left wing of arguments around Israel/Palestine in comparison to any other major American Jewish organization.
deal? but not debate? you mean open and willing to deal with the left wing of arguments as long as it’s not coming from a palestinian? nice caveat btw (in comparison to any other major American Jewish organization) because the racism is pervasive thru out all the jewish organizations, except jvp.
they are afraid to stand as equals on a stage across from their ideological opponents. afraid they won’t sound very equal but in fact blatantly morally inferior when publicly challenged.
“since when is america’s special relationship with israel a ‘jewish conversation’? it isn’t.”
Strawman alert. No one is claiming that America’s relationship with Israel is an exclusive Jewish conversation.
Some of us think that Jews can have a conversation about important issues without being accused of excluding anyone – just like other groups do from time to time. It’s no different than the common practice of breaking into ‘caucus.’
Strawman alert. No one is claiming that America’s relationship with Israel is an exclusive Jewish conversation.
sorry if you thought i was strawmaning it. i’ll try to rephrase. i interpreted your statement , the one i copied, as meaning that the bds conversation was limited for jews internally to the jewish community.
of course jews can discuss bds internally, that is not the issue. it is that they are limiting their participation in a larger conversation with the entire community. so when you say ” when Palestinians want to have a conversation that is internal to the Palestinian community, should we accuse them of racism” i interpreted that to mean “when jews want to have a conversation that is internal to the jewish community, should we accuse them of racism”? since bds IS NOT solely a conversation that is internal to the jewish community, how is limiting jewish discussion of it to an exclusive Jewish conversation explained for this american issue? do you mean you think it is an american issue but just one we can discuss without american jews because they are only taking about it amongst themselves?
Some of us think that Jews can have a conversation about important issues without being accused of excluding anyone
sure, Jews can have an internal conversation excluding non jews about important issues but if those important issues effect all americans then they should be willing to ALSO have a conversation with us about it. and if that important issue effects palestinians then they should be willing to ALSO have a conversation with palestinians about it.
so as long as this important conversation includes other people and jews are unwilling to also have a conversation with us about it then they will be accused of excluding us (based on ethnicity) because that is what they are doing. so talk amongst yourself all you want just like other groups have internal conversations as they should. but don’t get all defensive on us when you refuse to come to the table and debate the subject with the very people your decision massively impacts.
aside from jewish americans having a strong identity as jews there is also their identity as americans so an internal american discussion of bds sans jstreet seems kinda weird. and there is an american discussion and it will get louder. there are american palestinians available to discuss this topic and excluding yourself from a conversation or debate other than your own tribe will be noted (and noticed as ethnically motivated, racist). i’m not critical of your internal conversation, i’m critical of the one you won’t have, and why.
“Some of us think that Jews can have a conversation about important issues without being accused of excluding anyone”
And “Jews” either includes or excludes anybody we (or however is running the show) wants it to. And everybody else is supposed to be so afraid of that delineation (who is a Jew and who is not, what could be more freighted with the perils of anti-Semitism?) that it goes completely unchallenged. It’s a cheap trick, and it won’t work much longer.
And so any nebbish who says “within the Jewish community” goes completely unasked “and who is that exactly, and what gives you the right to speak for them?”
J Street speaks for its members and listed supporters (some 170,000 or so). I think you are conflating them with something else.
Annie,
Great post: annie April 12, 2011 at 1:00 pm.
i’m not critical of your internal conversation, i’m critical of the one you won’t have, and why.
And, I would add, the accusations of anti-semitism still hurled at non-Jews for demanding to be included in this conversation. bds is not a jewish conversation. let american jews fork out the 3 billion a year! AND the $30 billion in military weaponry they tacked onto this.
That’s well over $60 billion for the last 10 years (that figure excludes all the little things, like the $250m for the Iron Dome last month, and so-called security for domestic Jewish groups). $60+ billion. What the Republicans just cut from the US budget.
Israel has become a canker sore on the US body politic. You only have to look at Israel’s GDP since 1986 to see how the neocon (yes: read extremely Pro-Israel Jewish) manipulation of our foreign policy, trade laws, banking/investment banking laws, and defense industries (all under the specious globalization moniker) in favor of Israel has benefited it at a 600% rate. Yet, it still stands on our shores asking for handouts.
link to google.com
I’d like to ship MRW’s comment to every home in the USA. It’s a doozy, as they use to say.
Which is precisely what happened when they tried to debate Max Blumenthal on this topic. He made them look weak, impotent, desperate, delusionsl and immoral.
barghouti’s comment rings true based on ben-ami’s ‘body of work’. i am trying to think of a more slippery, repulsive character than ben-ami in the context of the IP debate, and no comes to mind at the moment. and let’s be clear about this, his comment is not simply a statement about who is qualified to enter the debate about the appropriateness of a particular tactic, but a broader statement about IP being a ‘jewish’ issue. ben-ami’s inevitable irrelevance can’t come quickly enough.
IP isn’t a ‘Jewish’ issue. J Street is simply a ‘Jewish’ organization. Next up: why are Palestinian organizations so…. ‘Palestinian’?
no, you’re right, IP isn’t a ‘jewish’ issue, it has been/is simply being treated as one by ben-ami and his ilk. you’re being disingenuous when you reduce the point of this thread to the right of a private organization to select its members. the point is that US policy towards israel has long been treated as a ‘jewish’ matter.
Exactly, and so it has always been. Among the Zionist’s worst nightmares is the one in which the public suddently awakens to the reality of american lives and resources being squandered on behalf of the zionist entity, without the publc’s having any say in the matter. Actually, about as much input as in the following exchange -
“Hey, since I’ve got relatives fighting in wars that benefit Israel, and pay taxes which go towards the 3 billion dollar annual giveaway to the Zionist entity, how come I have no say in the matter?”
“Because so long as we Jewish Zionists make like the Mideast conflict is an all Jewish affair, we hold the reins, but once the public is on to our ploy and becomes involved, there goes our control.”
marc, I support you and all others in making the overall treatment of the IP issue less of a ‘Jewish’ issue. It is so much more than that – of course.
But it does NOT follow that for many Jews it is therefore NOT a Jewish issue. People get to huddle with each other now and then. Sometimes those people are Jews. It’s not a racist insult.
This Zionist effort to denounce those who criticize their settler entity goes way back. Here, for example, is a conversation that took place circa 30 years ago between yourstruly and a lifelong friend -
“yourstruly, your name came up at an Anti-Defamation League meeting.”
“What, on the list of self-hating Jews?”
“Something like that.”
“Did you mention that you knew me?’
“Are you kidding?”
Clenchner
So the critic of the “small tent” likes his own small tent, then? So much so that he’s defending the banning of non-Jewish voices from the debate at J Street?
I’m pleased that J Street does engage the broader community and isn’t as insular as say, Brit Tzedek was. I think Jeremy’s political instincts are good in this case.
Trust me – I condemn the mainstream Jewish community for being insular, etc. That said, why should I care if the mainstream Jewish community is full of small tenters? I don’t actually care too much about that community, esp. not the one built around blind support for Israel.
THIS community though, is more important to me personally, as someone who has spent 25+ years working in peace and anti-occupation organizations.
yours truly, I can top that! I have been reliably informed that every time I proudly proclaim my Jewishness, baptisms in area churches go up a few points.
“IP isn’t a ‘Jewish’ issue. J Street is simply a ‘Jewish’ organization. Next up: why are Palestinian organizations so…. ‘Palestinian’?”
Gosh, clenchner, I don’t know, maybe cause they had the misfortune to, you know, live or be born in, well, Palestine?
But of course, any half-breed who claims to be “Jewish” (you got a list?) has a guaranteed voice in the debate?
Good Lord above, is there no defamation, no use, no degradation a ZIonists will not put the word “Jewish” through? Why don’t you just chain it behind a car and drag it down the road?
Or would you prefer all Jews were listed, so we could actually know wh…Oh, never mind, I bet that would suit you just fine.
So you object to any organization calling itself Jewish. Good luck with that.
Max, if I get your point, then why spend a paragraph on Bernard Avishai (with his “intellectual caliber”), without noting that his whole linked argument is from a we-jews-only world?
Need a laugh. Rip roar.
link to huffingtonpost.com
Thanks, Kathleen. ;-)
I like Colbert’s little gem in the middle about Jon Kyl’s office issuing a statement that Kyl’s lie about Planned Parenthood was “not intended to be a factual statement.” “You can’t call him out for being wrong when he never intended to be right. What an incredible liberating defense.”
Sound like the same people who wrote Goldstone’s op-ed.
“Only Jews can discuss BDS” (J Street). If there’s a more craven, pathetic, idiotic, shallow, feckless, and poltroonish statement of purpose out there – I’d love to hear it. J Street is just one big racist constipated nebbish circle jerk. Their entire raison d’etre is getting group hugs. The focus should long ago have been on educating American Gentiles. Isn’t it over obvious that they’re the ones who’ll make the difference?
Keep it crisp, Debonnare!
The subject policy at issue here is nothing but warmed-over We Jews don’t air our dirty laundry in front of the Goys. The minor problem (so far) is that Israel is a nuclear-armed state smack dab in the middle of the most key geo-political area in the world, with the 4th strongest army in the world, and it is the largest beneficiary of US foreign aid in American history. Time for all Jews to get beyond the ghetto mentality and recognize the simple fact that what the state of Israel does impacts the whole world. Even goyhim will eventually demand a seat at the Jews Only table. The real shame is not Jewish shame; it’s that the shameless goys have not demanded such a seat and put some real teeth in their demand. A reckoning is coming from the suppressed heartland. Eventually, it always does–we call this world history. After everyone who comes here is dead future generations, some perhaps already in the making, will read of WW3; and eventually the links between the three world wars will be seen–as one long war.
“the ghetto mentality”
How dare you insult us like that? I insist that from now on you call it ‘the gated-community mentality’.
Ever thought you’d see Jews herding themselves behind fences and locking the gate, incidentally, Mooser? God bless people like you, by the way. I know it’s hard to feel this, but sooner or later people like you will save the Jews from Zealotry 2.0.
I’m not sure he has applied for the position?
It is difficult to disagree with any of the criticisms of J Street here, but I still believe they have an important role to play.
They are dealing with two political realities. One is that the settlement movement is moving inevitably towards a one-state solution while they correctly see that this will undermine Israel as a Jewish state. Two it is the American Jewish community that is enabling those policies that is destroying Israel.
Hence it makes total sense that they will focus their discussion within that community. Personally, I think the settlers have already won and two states is no longer possible. But still this discussion is important inside the American Jewish community because the big political struggle to come will be whether Israel will be an apartheid state or a state of all of its citizens. I see the current J Street tactic as setting the table for that future debate and hopefully educating people that the apartheid option is immoral.
If only Jews can debate Israel, then only Palestinians can debate Palestine.
You will find that Palestinian organizations are not nearly so discriminatory as Jewish ones apparently are.
Nowhere is anyone claiming that only Jews can debate Israel. Or BDS.
Nowhere is anyone claiming that only Jews can debate Israel. Or BDS.
got it clencher.
J Street’s Ben Ami has Jews-only policy on BDS debates