When Michael Oren declined an invitation to appear at J Street’s conference in October, the Israeli embassy put out a statement explaining the move as a response to J Street policies that “might impair Israel’s interests.” It was a devastating statement, but compared to the ambassador’s latest remarks, it was a relatively tame rebuke:
J Street supporters may disagree, but J Street’s statements on Jerusalem, its denunciation of Operation Cast Lead, its long-running fight against sanctions on Iran (though the group recently capitulated on that issue), all indicate that J Street is well outside the Israeli political consensus on the use of military force, on settlements, and on Iran. These are key issues, and J Street’s views put them at odds with all three of Israel’s three main parties, all of which have supported settlements, all of which supported Cast Lead, all of which back sanctions on Iran, and none of which consider Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem as “settlements.” J Street chief Jeremy Ben-Ami tries to take cover behind the group’s recent decision to support sanctions on Iran. “Perhaps if he would meet with us, he could actually find out what we stand for, rather than having to misrepresent our position,” Ben-Ami says, but it’s almost impossible to properly represent J Street’s positions on some of these issues. Oren blasted J Street for failing to oppose the Goldstone report. So what is J Street’s position on Goldstone? The group never criticized Goldstone, and yet, according to Ben-Ami, neither did the group embrace Goldstone’s conclusions. When I asked J Street policy director Hadar Susskind to clarify, he told me, “There’s a lot of space between condemn and embrace.” And then THE WEEKLY STANDARD reported that a member of J Street’s advisory council was assisting Goldstone as he lobbied against a House resolution condemning the report. On Iran sanctions, before J Street endorsed passage of Berman’s bill over the weekend, the group’s position was nearly impossible to discern. Typically, when a group supports a bill, it also supports passage of the bill, but not in this case. J Street supported Berman’s bill, but opposed its passage on the grounds that it wasn’t an opportune time, what with Obama’s ongoing attempt to find a diplomatic solution. This position caused considerable confusion among J Street supporters and critics. There are already so many questions surrounding J Street’s claim to be “pro-Israel,” many of them raised by self-described anti-Zionists who count themselves among the group’s core supporters, but, ultimately, “pro-Israel” is not a subjective term. If the Israeli government believes J Street opposes its policies on a range of national security issues, that it is “fooling around with the lives of 7 million people,” it can only further complicate J Street’s already troubled efforts to portray itself as a genuine pro-Israel voice.
