Jeremy, J Street Jew

J Street's Jeremy Ben-Ami has an op-ed in The Forward: For Israel's Sake, Moderate American Jews Must Find Their Voice (and a similar one in the ‘International Herald Tribune’ of April 10, under the headline: “Tel-Aviv, Then and Now”.

Its essence:

For the sake of Israel, the United States and the world, it is time for American political discourse to re-engage with reality. Voices of reason need to reclaim what it means to be pro-Israel and to establish in American political discourse that Israel’s core security interest is to achieve a negotiated two-state solution and to define once and for all permanent, internationally recognized borders...In early 21st-century America, the rules of politics are being rewritten, and conventional political orthodoxy is clearly open to once-inconceivable challenges.

It is time for the broad, sensible mainstream of pro-Israel American Jews and their allies to challenge those on the extreme right who claim to speak for all American Jews in the national debate about Israel and the Middle East — and who, through the use of fear and intimidation, have cut off reasonable debate on the topic.

Why should this silly approach be adopted?

Well, Jeremy asserts:

By and large, we are a progressive community, among the most liberal in the United States.

and what really bothers him is:

In the name of protecting Israel, some of our community’s leaders became linked with neoconservatives...Some of our leaders have struck up fast friendships with far-right Christian Zionists...many of these are people with whom we disagree profoundly on values and beliefs that our community holds dear...

In Washington today, these voices are seen to speak for the entire American Jewish community. But they don’t speak for me. And I don’t believe they speak for the majority of the American Jews with whom I have lived and worked.

So, Jeremy's personal beliefs andwhat he perceives personally to be the majority of American Jewish beliefs is what counts. And if the majority of Jew werre arch-conservatives, would Jeremy be quiet? By the by, if that is true that Jews are progressive, how come for over 60 years the vast majority of America's Jews support what Jeremy would consider "extreme right views"? Well, simple, really. Because in the Middle East, there is no balance nor logic nor rationality on the Arab side and you can't compare to the political atmosphere in democratic America. To apply "Washington rules" of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to the Arab-Israel conflict is not only wrong but stupid. Jeremy, though, would blame the "Jewish establishment", as if he were an antisemite, which he isn't.

The J Street poll was destroyed by Rosner (and see my comments below) and the J Street interference on that Iran rally, getting Sarah Palin dis-invited gto please Hillary Clinton to the detriment of Israel is a matter of anti-Israel record.

At that Forward op-ed, some commented that they presumed to know what Jeremy's grandparents and parents would be doing in their graves - rolling over. I don't know for sure but since Jeremy does invoke his ancestry ("I support Israel. My family history ingrains in me the belief that the Jewish people need and deserve a home. I know that that nation must be strong and secure and that a deep bond between Israel and America is essential to its survival."), I am going to take a guess that with his current policies, if Jeremy had been his grandfather, Tel Aviv would not have been purchased and established. It would have been considered Arab land, Jewish expansion and needlessly causing friction with the neighbors. Sometimes, chronology does work - Jeremy is not his grandfather, although I am sure his proud display of genealogy is as empty as his political aptitude.

On April 17, next week, the descendants of the founders will gather in Tel Aviv at the ‘old’ Manshia Train Station (border Neve-Tsedek/Yafa) on April 17th, at 10:30 to reenact the famous photograph,



together with descendants of the city builders and prominent figures alongside thousands of residents.

Jeremy Ben-Ami will be there.

I wonder, will anyone be there holding up a placard reading:

Jeremy J Street Jew:
If this was 1909,
You'd Be Opposing The Purchase

====================================


In that poll, I searched for the section on revenant Jewish communities and found this:

American Jews Oppose Settlement Expansion: By a 60 to 40 percent margin, American Jews oppose the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank based on “what they know” and after receiving short statements by supporters and opponents of settlement expansion. Simply put, attitudes toward settlements are highly negative and firmly held. Not surprisingly, opposition to settlements is higher among Reform (64 percent oppose) and unaffiliated Jews (69 percent oppose), in contrast to Orthodox Jews who strongly support settlements (80 percent support). But one very interesting demographic finding is the strong opposition (72 percent oppose) among Jews who give money to political campaigns.

And here is the raw material:-

Q.60 From what you know about Israeli settlements in the West Bank, do you support or oppose expanding these settlements?

Total:

Strongly support..... 14

Somewhat support..... 25

Somewhat oppose..... 28

Strongly oppose..... 32

which sums up as Total Support..... 40 vs. Total Oppose..... 60.

Support - Oppose..... -21


Q.61 Supporters of expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank say this is the biblical Land of Israel, Jews have the right to live there, and settlement expansion is necessary to accommodate natural growth.

Opponents of expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank say the settlements break agreements with the United States, violate international law, and prevent Arab-Israeli peace because they establish Israeli population centers in the middle of a future Palestinian state.

After hearing these statements, do you support or oppose expanding these settlements?

Total

Strongly support..... 16

Somewhat support..... 24

Somewhat oppose..... 29

Strongly oppose..... 30



Total Support..... 40

Total Oppose..... 60

Support - Oppose..... -19

And remember:

Gerstein | Agne Strategic Communications designed the questionnaire for this survey of 800 self-identified adult American Jews, conducted February 28-March 8, 2009. The survey has a margin of error of +/- 3.5 percent; the margin of error in the split samples is +/- 4.9 percent.

Now, my comments:

1. Question #60 is phrased as "From what you know about Israeli settlements in the West Bank, do you support or oppose expanding these settlements?" What would have happened result-wise if I had composed the question so:

From what you know about Jewish communities established in Judea and Samaria, what is also referred to as the "West Bank", do you support or oppose these communities, towns and villages?

2. I would then add:

From what you know about Jewish communities established in Judea and Samaria, what is also referred to as the "West Bank", do you support or oppose the expanding of these communities, towns and villages within their official zoned areas, what is called "organic growth"?

3. As regards Question #61, I would have composed it so:-

Supporters of expanding the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, what is also referred to as the West Bank, say this is the biblical Land of Israel, Jews have the natural right to live there just as Arabs can live in Israel, that the international community assigned all this territory to have it become the Jewish national home before being partitioned and expansion is necessary to accommodate natural growth as well as contribute to Israel's security.

Opponents of expanding Israeli settlements in there claim the communities break agreements with the United States, violate international law, harm Israel's security and moral fibre and prevent Arab-Israeli peace because they establish Israeli population centers in the middle of a future Palestinian state.

After hearing these statements, do you support or oppose expanding these communities?

4. And notice, that while overall this is no change in negative responses from #60 to #61, actually the strongly opposed to #61 is reduced. In other words, the explanation within the question contributed to a doubt which reduced opposition from 32 to 30!