My debate with J Street’s Jeremy Ben-Ami
By Roz Rothstein/JNS.org
On Monday evening, March 11, I had a public discussion with Jeremy Ben-Ami, founder and president of J Street, at Temple Isaiah in Los Angeles. The topics included how American Jews should approach pro-Israel advocacy, whether peace is currently attainable between Israel and Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas, and what American Jews can do to help the two sides reach an agreement.
We agreed that the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement is dangerous and harmful to Israel. We agreed that the Palestinian teaching of hate, incitement, and terrorism is an impediment to peace, and we both professed a desire for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
We strongly disagreed, however, on some critical issues. J Street argued that American Jews should lobby the U.S. government to pressure Israel into changing some of its policies. Referring to a statement from J Street’s website, I read aloud that, “J Street was formed to change the conversation on Israel and to give voice to American Jews who believe that they have a responsibility to vocally oppose Israeli government policies that threaten Israel’s future.” While Mr. Ben-Ami claimed he did not recognize this statement from his website, I was troubled that J Street felt it had a right to lobby the American government in order to pressure Israel—and its democratically elected government—into pursuing J Street’s agenda.
We also disagreed about whether Abbas is a reliable partner for peace. While Mr. Ben-Ami assured the audience that “this is the time, and Abbas is the man,” I noted that just two months ago, in January 2013, Abbas honored past Palestinian terrorist leaders, including the Mufti of Jerusalem who collaborated with Adolf Hitler to bring the Holocaust to the Middle East. I questioned how Mr. Ben-Ami could trust Israel’s security in the hands of Abbas, who promotes one set of values to his Arabic constituency and quite another to Western audiences.
Likewise, Mr. Ben-Ami and I differed on how he characterized certain facts. For instance:
Beitar soccer games: Mr. Ben-Ami suggested that Israeli incitement and Palestinian incitement are similar. I expressed that I felt this was an unreasonable comparison. For evidence, he pointed out that Israeli crowds at Jerusalem soccer matches shout, “Death to Arabs” so much that former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he could no longer root for his team. In response, I noted that this is a critical point: Olmert represented the state of Israel and he condemned such views. I said that you can judge a society by the way its leadership responds when its people say or do hateful things.
Mr. Ben-Ami then implied that there was a lack of an official Israeli government response to the hateful soccer rhetoric because Olmert is now a private citizen. In fact Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strongly condemned the racist comments of Beitar fans.
Monument for Baruch Goldstein: When I cited Baruch Goldstein as an example of how Israel denounces acts of violence by Israelis against Palestinian civilians, he stated that Israel “funded a monument [to Baruch Goldstein]. See the public memorial!” In fact, Israel never funded a monument to Baruch Goldstein. There was indeed a monument erected by some Goldstein supporters, but the Israeli army demolished it after the Knesset passed a law in 1999 forbidding memorials to terrorists. My point was that the Israeli government condemned Goldstein as a terrorist while the PA government glorifies terrorists.
Demographic threat: Mr. Ben-Ami repeated his oft-made declaration that Israel must be pressured into making peace now because demographics are such that Jews will be a minority in Israel within a generation and “will be ruling over a majority that doesn’t have rights.” I called this fear-mongering and asked Mr. Ben-Ami if he includes the Palestinian population of 1.5 million people living in Gaza in his accounting of Israeli demographic concerns. This is a critical point because Israel no longer has administrative or political control over the Gaza population. Mr. Ben-Ami admitted he includes the population of Gaza. Interestingly, if we remove Gaza from these calculations, Mr. Ben-Ami’s demographic numbers are reduced by 50 percent and no longer make the case for the demographic threat being an emergency.
Humanitarian blockade on Gaza: Mr. Ben-Ami asserted that Israel caused a humanitarian crisis in Gaza in the 2008 war through its blockade and that the blockade was lifted in part because of J Street’s lobbying. I pointed out that Israel has consistently allowed food and medical supplies into Gaza, even during wars and blockades. At the time, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which provides aid to Palestinian refugees, said that the agency received 15 trucks of aid a day and had two months of stock in Gaza to aid recipients.
Mediation techniques: While I agreed with Mr. Ben-Ami’s statements that we need an active American role in facilitating Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, I disagreed with his desire to impose specific details about what the peace agreement should be. As an honest broker, I would hope that the American role would be to mediate a plan arrived at by the parties themselves, rather than pressuring the parties into preexisting expectations. President Barack Obama himself echoed this sentiment when he recently said that his role should be to listen to both sides and help them work out compromises.
Looking back at the evening’s discussion, I am saddened that Mr. Ben-Ami insists that he and J Street are helping Israel, when in reality the actions of his organization are only hurting Israel and the advancement of peace. While we all wish for a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians, J Street’s work only emboldens Palestinians to continue their history of rejectionism and incitement. J Street encourages Palestinian refusal to return to negotiations because it does not require any accountability from them and does not seek to change hateful attitudes towards Israel—both of which are prerequisites for a lasting peace.
Roz Rothstein is the CEO of StandWithUs.
**
J Street’s positions are squarely in the mainstream
By Jeremy Ben-Ami/JNS.org
WASHINGTON—Opponents of J Street consistently argue that our positions are somehow radical, strange and way out of the Israeli or American-Jewish mainstream.
The opposite is true: when it comes to Israeli-Palestinian peace, the two-state solution and the inexorable demographic threat to Israel’s future as a democratic state that remains the homeland for the Jewish people, our position is the same as that of the Israeli government, the Obama administration and the vast bulk of the American Jewish community.
It is right-wing critics like StandWithUs CEO Roz Rothstein who are out of step.
Take for example the two-state solution. Israeli ambassador Michael Oren, in an NPR interview March 15, said he agreed with our view that the current situation is unsustainable.
“I think it’s preferable to replace it with a two-state solution based on recognition of the Palestinian people and their unassailable right to self-determination to live in their own state and their own homeland and the recognition of the Jewish people and its unassailable right to self-determination and our right to live in an independent state in our ancestral homeland. That is the only way to end the conflict and bring about a permanent and legitimate peace,” said Oren.
Ms. Rothstein argues that Israel has no Palestinian partner with whom to negotiation. Amb. Oren, citing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu disagreed: “He says we have someone to negotiate with. It’s President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority.”
On the demographic threat to Israel’s Jewish character, this is how Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak framed it in his speech to AIPAC: “We need a daring peace initiative vis-à-vis the Palestinians. A two-state solution is the only viable long-term solution. It is a compelling imperative for us, in order to secure our identity and our future as a Jewish and democratic state; it’s not a favor for the Palestinians.”
Ms. Rothstein contends that if we take the Palestinian population of Gaza out of the equation, there is no demographic threat to Israel’s Jewish majority. But Sergio DellaPergola of the Hebrew University, who is the foremost expert on the subject disagrees.
Right now, the total number of Jews and Arabs living under Israeli rule in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza is just under 12 million people. Already, under 50 percent of the population is Jewish. Those figures will continue to worsen over time because Palestinian birthrates outstrip Jewish birthrates.
Contrary to Rothstein’s view, DellaPergola’s figures show that taking Gaza out of the equation does not buy Israel much time. If Israel continues to occupy the West Bank alone (without Gaza), Jews will constitute only 54 percent of the population by 2030 and 45 percent by 2048 when it celebrates its 100th anniversary.
Ms. Rothstein makes much out of my contention that for negotiations to succeed, an active and leading US role will be required. My view is based on commonsense and informed by the views of experts in conflict resolution like Prof. Allen S. Weiner of Stanford University.
In a Feb. 28 op-ed in the International Herald Tribune, Weiner argued that, “direct talks between implacable foes, without active mediation, may be the worst possible way to try to settle the conflict. Facing one’s adversary directly across the table heightens psychological barriers even to a mutually beneficial deal.”
Weiner argued: “The parties to the conflict are prisoners to beliefs based on their history, which color the way they see both themselves and their adversaries. As a result, it is hard for them to interpret information, evaluate risk and set priorities in a purely rational way. Even when an advantageous deal is on the table, they are psychologically disposed to reject it.”
At the end of the day, J Street exists to help Israel reach the deal it needs and wants so much and which is so central to its future as a Jewish state and as a democracy. It’s also a crucial US national strategic interest. As citizens of this democracy, we have an obligation to state our views and the right to be active in the political arena.
We work for a strong America and all that it represents in the world. And we work for a safe, secure, democratic Israel living at peace with its neighbors.
**
Jeremy Ben-Ami is the executive director of J Street
*
JNS. org arranged for both articles appearing above
As a member of J Street I take seriously:Prime Minister Arik Sharon charge to Jews everywhere when he wrote that:
“I want you to know that Israel is not only an Israeli project. Israel is the project of world Jewry as well … and you share a responsibility for what happens here. No, you do not need to carry all the burden on your shoulders, but it is your responsibility because what happens in the future in Israel influences Jewish life all around the world.”
In our view, Israel cannot retain its Jewish character, continue as a democracy and retain control of the West Bank. To those who disagree I simply ask: what is your alternative?