One of the most appealing, revolutionary, perplexing and perhaps sustainable aspects of J Street’s message is that there is not one but multiple ways to be pro-Israel. Appealing because it lets us be freer with our opinions; revolutionary because it appears to break with the traditional American Jewish idea that we must present a unified front regarding Israel’s policies; perplexing because J Street has articulated a set of distinct policies for Israel; and sustainable because it’s true: we don’t all agree on Israel, regardless of how much we may love the country.
It was hard to ignore the complexity of the assertion that there are as many ways to care for Israel as there are people when Daniel Sokatch, the new CEO of the New Israel Fund, said, “There is no one, official way to love Israel.” It would have perhaps been more inspiring or more simple, maybe, had he not continued, “We offer a critical third way for American Jews to love, support and engage” with the Jewish state: in other words, a specific way to love Israel, even though there are several ways you can.
Therein lies the problem: part of the appeal of J Street is that it is not AIPAC, that its message of tolerance and peace extends not just to the Palestinians but to other Jews–or non-Jews–that don’t fit the established mold; this would be fine if J Street were not an advocacy group, one committed to convincing senators, congressmen and the president that its solutions were better than those of AIPAC–a group that demands more orthodoxy in terms of Israel policy from its members.
So J Street becomes a catch-all for the diverse and disagreeing group of non-AIPAC Israel supporters, a dialogue group. This emerged in the J Street U student conference on Sunday, where students disagreed and discussed their differing Israel positions with each other in breakout sessions led by J Street U staffers who seemed happy to hear the dialogue but who doubtless wanted to push the students toward concrete action in terms of policy.
J Street U, however, calls in its mission statement for more dialogue than does J Street itself, so an emphasis on dissenting opinions there is more understandable, if less effective in terms of advancing policies. To hear the same emphasis at the beginning of the J Street conference, though, made it seem like the organization had some soul-searching to do in its quest to find its place in the Jewish institutional community. Jeremy Ben-Ami, the founder of the lobby, even spoke to those in the crowd who disagreed with J Street, asking them to come with “open minds” instead of “open mouths” ready to argue.
Ben-Ami’s statement indicated a trend in J Street: part of their message is still on the defensive. This is understandable: several leading Jewish news sources, including the JTA and the Jerusalem Post, have run articles questioning the effectiveness and even the right of J Street to advocate the positions they do; in addition, the Israeli Embassy has sent an observer to the conference rather than Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador here. Beyond that, J Street has a herculean task ahead if it intends to convince the Jewish community of its correctness; AIPAC is one of Washington’s best lobbies. By acknowledging its interlocutors and asserting several times that their brand of “pro-Israel” is legitimate, J Street expressed that it exists not so much to provide a second or third way, but to break the monopoly.
With that break comes a plethora of new perspectives that all gain legitimacy because an institution has told them that their version of being pro-Israel is authentic. This is a triumph for the Jewish community, that people’s opinions can find acceptance; it creates a situation wherein people need to encounter opinions different from their own and think critically about what they believe. This may indeed be J Street’s biggest impact and right now it seems to be their most important one, but Ben-Ami and others will at some point need to ask how much divergence from the party line they will tolerate, and what they want their message to be.
