[PhillipHer]

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/20...t-to-its-face/

From news article:
The rabbi not only denounced J Street’s positions as “arrogant” and “intellectually shallow,” he also called the group out for supporting anti-Israel policies and promoting a condescending view of Israeli citizens.

“You think that those of us who claim that we favor a two-state solution but who are not willing to give up the store at this moment are bluffing,” Gordis said to the organization. “But that is arrogance of the worst sort. Does your distance from the conflict give you some moral clarity that we don’t have? Are you smarter than we are? Are you less racist? Why do you assume with such certainty that you have a monopoly on the wisdom needed to get to the goal we both seek?”

Gordis went on the say that J Street’s positions raised legitimate questions over whether it should be included in the pro-Israel “tent.”

“Why would you assume that we’re stupid, or immoral, or addicted to the conflict?” he asked the group. “Why do you insist that the Fatah-Hamas agreement is a good thing, or that it’s best for Israel if the United States twists its arm even harder? At a time when Israel is so alone, can you see why it’s hard for many of us to buy the argument that you’re genuinely pro-Israel, or that you should be part of the Big Tent?"

[doctorzlo]

I didn't realize he was a Rabbi....

[Lt_Apple]

Here is the founder of JStreet, Jeremy Ben-Ami's, reply to Daniel Gordis:

http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Opinio...aspx?id=223309

Due to the 10,000 word limit, I will not quote the whole column (hence the above link is provided to the full column) and will only address key highlights:

Let me summarize in just a few words our vision of a reasonable two-state solution:

• Two states for two peoples – with borders whose definition should be based on the 1967 lines adjusted through equivalent and mutually agreed land swaps so that the major settlement blocs can remain inside Israel;

• Security arrangements including demilitarization of the Palestinian state and international forces on its borders to ensure against arms smuggling and terrorism;

• Resolution of the refugee issue through financial compensation and relocation of refugees to the state of Palestine or third countries (i.e., “no right of return to Israel” – though negotiations could provide for some minimal family reunification);

• The capital of both states in Jerusalem – with Jewish neighborhoods part of Israel and Arab neighborhoods part of Palestine; a special international regime would administer the holy sites, ensuring free access for all.

Gordis may or may not agree with this rather simple outline – and I would be more than happy to engage with him in a public and vibrant discussion of the merits of this proposal. Perhaps in Jerusalem in a public venue? Maybe repeat it in Washington, New York and LA?

WHETHER ONE agrees with it or not, it would be quite a statement to argue that these positions are somehow “outside the pro-Israel tent” since it’s virtually identical to the proposals of Israel’s recent prime ministers, many of its leading former military, diplomatic and security officials, the Kadima party (which holds the most seats of any faction in the Knesset), and the majority of Israel’s newspaper editorial boards and columnists. On the surface, Jeremy Ben-Ami seems to be right (much as I, personally, am against the "two-state solution", specifically when it comes to dividing Jerusalem). However, I must ask, what is JStreet bringing to the table that is new, other than doing what they can to twist Obama's arm to twist Israel's arm to accept a "peace arrangement" that is not only pre-mature for most Israeli's, but most "Palestinians" as well?

Why doesn’t Gordis make the case for how Israel is going to survive as a Jewish and a democratic state without making major territorial concessions to the Palestinians now? I believe it’s because he and other neoconservatives cannot credibly argue that the present situation is sustainable for Israel. So they switch the topic to an array of wrongs supposedly committed by J Street. Because unlike JStreet, Gordis and most of the rest of us who actually live here, we are not ready to "take chances" for a pre-mature "peace". As of now, Abbas and most of his constituency have not even accepted Israel's right to exist as the nation state for the Jews.

Take Hamas. J Street unequivocally condemns Hamas for the use of violence and terror to achieve its ends. We call on Hamas to release captured IDF soldier Gilad Schalit. We condemn the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel and agree that the state of Israel has the right and the duty to protect its citizens and to defend itself, within reasonable limits. Then why didn't I hear JStreet condemn the firing of missiles into southern Israel for the eight years preceding Operation Cast Lead, but I DID hear them condemn Israel's response in Operation Cast Lead when even Meretz supported it (albeit begrudgingly)?

Similarly on boycotts, divestment and sanctions, J Street has made its opposition to the Global BDS Movement clear. We have spoken out against boycotts and divestment initiatives all across the country, regularly working with Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other Jewish organizations. Our effectiveness in countering such efforts is acknowledged, but I would ask how we’re supposed to engage, debate and persuade those who might be attracted to the BDS Movement if Gordis and others attack us for speaking in the same hall or forum with them?

We believe the Jewish community is strong enough to handle a vigorous and spirited debate – not simply between Daniel Gordis and J Street but between J Street and Jewish Voice for Peace. And my question is why does JStreet allow the BDS at their conferences to speak, but not anyone to the right of Kadima? Would they let Bibi Netanyahu speak at one of their conferences?

In my view and in the view of many, both in and out of the country, the state of Israel is heading off a cliff. Without a change in the status quo, the Jews of Israel will soon be a minority ruling over a majority of non- Jews while denying them their democratic rights.

This is strategically and morally unsustainable. It’s a future that does not augur well for the state of Israel or for the Jewish people more broadly, whether we live there or not. Aside from the fact that I disagree with JStreet's proposed solution (that is another story), the above statement is pretty arrogant. As Daniel Gordis noted in his column last week, do Ben-Ami and his disciples truly believe that Israelis love conflict and want to continue to send their kids to the front lines when they turn 18, rather than to university? And how about those like Alan Dershowitz who have been promoting the "two-state solution" when Ben-Ami was still in diapers? Does Ben-Ami think that Dershowitz, Gordis, and the rest of the "two state solution" endorsers who are not quite ready to take a leap of faith with those who still teach their kids to look at Israel as a foreign, illegitimate entity (has Ben-Ami taken a peak in the PA educational textbooks lately?) care about peace any less than he does?

[tgs]

Aliyah

I don't buy Ben Ami's story for the very simple reason that the Pals were already offered this very same deal by two of Israel's past prime ministers (Ehud Barak in 2001 and Ehud Olmert more recently, before Netanyahu was elected). Both times, the Palestinians ignored the offers, thereby in effect they rejected it. Yet J Street have been lobbying Obama to pressure Israel and NOT the Palestinian Arabs. If they would be pro Israel, then at the least, I would have expected them to lobby Obama to pressure BOTH Netanyahu AND the Palestinian Arabs.

Also, why were/are they pushing for the freeze on natural growth in places like East Jerusalem if they claim that they want Israel to keep the Major "Settlements"? And if they want an interim freeze, then why don't they insist that the Palestinian Arabs too should be subject to a freeze in East Jerusalem? If they are really pro Israel, then they should either insist on NO freeze, or a freeze for BOTH (at the least!).

[HedgeYourBets]

Reffo, I think a big part of it has to do with the "Chosen People Syndrome" (i.e. the liberal/progressive version of the Chosen People), which I started a thread about:

http://www.israelforum.com/board/sho...uot&highlight=

[S.T.D.]

My big and real fear is that if such people keep on persisting with their "idealism" (I'll give them the benefit of a very real doubt), then all they may achieve is to choose us out of existence ...

[MannoFr]

J-Street is an Iranian funded PR outlet built to backstop whatever Obama's official position is. No more, no less. It exists to pretend to be an independent voice yet there is not daylight between its positions and Obamas.

[Drugmachine]

I don't always agree with Daniel Gordis, but he sure put representatives from JStreet on the spot:

http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Opinio...aspx?id=222330

And judging by the Q&A session that followed, it seems like JStreet left NO question that they are outside the tent (even the big tent)....

[PhillipHer]

Excellent article. Gordis's points were spot on.

[TorryJens]

Yeah, Gordis gave them sage advice. He definitely did the right thing by talking to the group.

[softy54534]

J-Street has removed the phrase "Pro Israel" from most of their events and materials. They are riddled with money from Iranian lobbyists.

[brraverishhh]

J-Street has removed the phrase "Pro Israel" from most of their events and materials. They are riddled with money from Iranian lobbyists.

At the top of every page on their website it still says:

The political home for pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans source: http://jstreet.org/

[Peptobismol]

Well, I think Gordis called their bluff, so they might as well remove the "pro-Israel" phrase from anything associated with themselves....

At least they would be being honest....