Comments on: J Street: A New Avenue for Ideas or a Dead End? Day 1

By: themicah

themicah — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:24:32 +0000

Having Dickie Silverstein, Mondo Weiss, and Max Blumenthal at the convention is analogous to AIPAC inviting Robert Spencer (Jihad Watch) and Daniel Pipes to speak at theirs. No one would condone the latter, so why condone the former?

From what I’ve read, the Silverstein/Weiss/Blumenthal panel was technically not part of the J Street conference, although the separation appears to have been a nominal distancing only. I agree, however, that AIPAC probably wouldn’t even provide a room at their conference for the right-wing equivalents (as J Street did for that panel). And my guess is that J Street will learn from their mistakes in that regard if they really want to be taken seriously by the pro-Israel moderate left.

By: Larry

Larry — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:57:51 +0000

Ck no way…. trust me… we are different…. these guys were scary. one guy.. totally oblivious.. would type and type through entire panels and speaches… but not quietly.. he would pound his keyboard. he probably has aspergers, cuz he was oblivious to the stares of his neighbors and participants. that is what i mean. some people were just so ernestly self involved that they were oblivious to the wider picture or even to their own impact on the people next to them. but of course,,, i am just filled with love and respect for them

By: ck

ck — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:48:08 +0000

Larry wrote: “If you saw some of the bloggers there or even some bloggers on a panel or two, you would never read their works again. They are important only in their own minds and among their friends and frenemies…”

Hey! That’s kinda like… us. Fuck.

By: themiddle

themiddle — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:52:28 +0000

Wow, apparently Silverstein's actions on this video were only the beginning of the harassment of Hillel. Read the whole sad and sordid tale.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 04:08:26 +0000

TM is right. Having Dickie Silverstein, Mondo Weiss, and Max Blumenthal at the convention is analogous to AIPAC inviting Robert Spencer (Jihad Watch) and Daniel Pipes to speak at theirs. No one would condone the latter, so why condone the former?

By: themiddle

themiddle — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:47:45 +0000

Themicah, fair point. Then again, one of the reasons I’m not a member of AIPAC is precisely that I’d rather not let others define me or be able to outvote me on important issues. Is Code Pink an anomaly at J Street or representative of a large percentage of its members? Seeing Richard Silverstein there doesn’t give me much confidence.

By: themicah

themicah — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:03:46 +0000

For example, this woman from Code Pink.... My second inclination is to avoid J Street and recognize that under their big tent they have members whose views are anathema to me and whose approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict leads, in my opinion, to more wars and not peace. How is the Code Pink lady's involvement with J Street any different than a Kahanist showing up at AIPAC? The one time I went to the AIPAC convention (during Bibi's last administration) there were a number of people there who had views way to the right of what I believed, but I didn't avoid AIPAC for having a big tent that included them. My guess is that there are folks under AIPAC's umbrella today whose views are anathema to you as well. As for Hillel Stavis' ejection, even Mobius was critical of that.

By: Larry

Larry — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:51:58 +0000

I did not go to that session. It was not part of the event and they were only using a room. These things are peripheral and silliness, and not the main event. If you saw some of the bloggers there or even some bloggers on a panel or two, you would never read their works again.
They are important only in their own minds and among their friends and frenemies, but when it comes down to the real work of Congressional lobbying, they are of not importance. At least that is what I think

By: themiddle

themiddle — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:03:05 +0000

Was that the J Streeters Against “Israeli Apartheid” session?

By: ck

ck — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:40:59 +0000

More crazies? Why our old friend Richard Silverstein getting one of his enemies booted out of the not-at-all-sponsored-by-JStreet bloggers conference. The people doing the booting? J Street staffers. What was Hillel Stavis' crime? Well, nothing. He was a registered and paid up participant in the conference. He just disagrees with Silverstein and his presence was ruining Silverstein's party! Shoot - I wonder... would I have been booted out too?? Did you witness this mishegas Larry?

By: themiddle

themiddle — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:21:01 +0000

I think if J Street was a centrist movement, it would gain some serious traction. They are trying to depict themselves publicly in this way, but they have gathered too many groups that identify with the hard left. Essentially, they’ve left the center open for AIPAC because AIPAC can include the centrists. I believe it’s very hard for most Jews who know and care about Israel to take the approach that Israel is evil, but that is precisely what many in J Street’s camp say.

For example, this woman from Code Pink. I looked it up and her movement is currently involved in an attempt to boycott Ahava products. My first inclination – and I am somebody who supports what Barak offered at Taba, and can even live with Olmert’s “internationalized” Jerusalem, which I think can fairly be described as a centrist position and perhaps even left of center – is to go out and buy Ahava products for my wife. My second inclination is to avoid J Street and recognize that under their big tent they have members whose views are anathema to me and whose approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict leads, in my opinion, to more wars and not peace.

I hope that in your reports I will learn otherwise, but I’m not holding my breath.

By: Larry

Larry — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:58:56 +0000

Dear Middle.. thanks… one of the best incidents that i witneesed was at a panel moderated by a goateed JJ Goldberg of The Forward on what it is to be pro Israel. I sat in front of the VELVETEEN RABBI.

A former head of AIPAC stood up during the Q&A and said. When he was head of AIPAC (and a former Nazi Hunter), and AIPAC represented the Rabin and Peres Oslo views, there were right wingers who broke off and said that they would lobby Congress to be more right wing and against Oslo, opposing AIPAC and the elected Israeli cabinet

So.. governments change and stances change. When the govt was leftist, AIPAC had its alternatives, and now that it is rightist, it should also be expected

By: Tom Morrissey

Tom Morrissey — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:28:15 +0000

Ah-ha– now I’ve got it figured out . . . I take a pro-Likud line, and get you to tack to the center. This should be useful down the road.

Good post by Larry (except for his use of language that was not negative).

By: themiddle

themiddle — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:22:20 +0000

Ridiculous, Tom. AIPAC has as much right to lobby for its views as…J Street. And if there’s one thing you should have learned after all these years with us, it’s that there is no shortage of alternative voices and alternative thinkers in the Jewish community.

By the way, Larry, thank you for the post and I look forward to the next one.

By: Tom Morrissey

Tom Morrissey — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:10:26 +0000

In this time of great danger to Israel, all Jewish Americans should unswervingly support AIPAC’s line and the current Israeli government (until such time as it becomes the former government, then unswervingly support the next one, whatever it may be).

By: Larry

Larry — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:25:05 +0000

I think J Street can UNITE those who want a two state solution and want a free open debate in their synagogues and federations.

But they should exclude the fringes who will never adhere to the lobby group’s platform

But seriously… and I will blod about this after 5PM… the New Israel Fund was a lefty liberal charity for those bored of the UJA Israel Appeal. Their 2008 donations or assets was $33 million. This is but a drip in the bucket compared to the UJA federation funds raised for the Israel Appeal, after decades of existence.

Will J Street die like Breira? No. But will it be like AIPAC? No. It will be an address for those that are pro Israel, pro peace, but who don;t agree with the current coalition government

By: Larry

Larry — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:20:15 +0000

I think you have to write these people off. They are so left that they may not be part of any Jewish organization. There was a woman who passionately explained that she cannot LOVe Israel or be pro Israel or pro American, and that those are arcane ideas. There are those who railed against haredim and internal issues in Israel. There was a Christian Zionist who ultimately wanst all Jews to be Christian. There was an Asian diplomat who found the group too unrealistic. There were those who do not want a Jewish state but a beautifu mosaic state in which there is a slight Jewish character… so the conference, the first conference, attracted lots of fringes, but in the middle, the majority of attendees are pro a secure Jewish majority Israel living in peace with Syria, Jordan, the moderate Arab states, a Palestinian state, and a nuclear free Iran.

By: themiddle

themiddle — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:17:14 +0000

That woman is from Code Pink. Aren’t they one of the groups leading the boycott movement against Israel?

By: ck

ck — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:06:27 +0000

Biggest challenge facing J Street? How to unite the diverse voices represented at their conference into a cohesive political force. One solution is to move closer to the center but already those on the fringes are responding with lukewarm praise or outright hostility calling J Street a right wing organization. Here's a woman that attended the conference who exemplifies this tension somewhat: Hmmm. Looking forward to Larry's next installment!