Justin Elliott of Mother Jones says J Street's first congessional endorsements are ho-hum. "J Street's endorsees aren't talking about, say, how to put an end to Israeli settlement expansion, or about the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza." And the Forward says:
J Street settled on liberal politicians who are also comfortable
within the orbit of Aipac, a nonpartisan group that does not endorse
candidates.
“I don’t see J Street and Aipac as being antithetical in any way,”
said Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee, a first-term congressman who
traveled to Israel with Aipac last summer
So J Street is already having trouble differentiating itself as better dog food. I think the revelation actually took place two weeks ago, when in response to media questions, J Street's executive director had these mild things to say about Obama's pandering at the AIPAC policy conference. Notice that neither of Jereme Ben-Ami's comments comes close to lambasting Obama or AIPAC. Jeremy Ben-Ami says that Obama's statement about Jerusalem was "unhelpful" and that AIPAC is trying to make it "costly" for political candidates to stick by our country's alleged policy–a viable two-state solution. An excellent point. But unemphatic.
J Street did not issue a statement of its own–just look at the website— didn't take on AIPAC for bringing Obama to his knees in the eyes of the world, and didn't fault Obama for pandering.Didn't offer an analysis of what is wrong with AIPAC. Jon Stewart was far more critical of Obama and AIPAC than J Street! Why did J Street go so quietly into that dark night on an issue tailor-made for its theme? I'm told that it doesn't want to hurt Obama with Jewish voters. J Street wants Obama to win, and is afraid that if it comes out against Obama's statements vigorously, it might cause division or strain, and knock down Obama's support from say 75 percent of Jews to only 65 percent (I think 40 is the maginot line: Reagan got nearly 40). So let's follow this logic. J Street says that it has to exist because AIPAC doesn't represent the liberal body of American Jewry. But when push comes to shove, J Street doesn't believe in that liberal body either. A recent AJC poll shows that American Jews are against dividing Jerusalem by 58 to 36 percent. I.e., Obama is with 'em!
That's the heart of the matter. American Jews are still backward on this issue. Yes those 36 percent belong to Obama, but J Street is afraid to try to grow that 36 percent by taking an angry stand when it matters. I get the feeling they don't believe their own claims.
(P.S. I applaud J Street for calling on American Jews to support the Gaza ceasefire…)
