November 7, 2009

By Mat Hausman

J Street’s first annual conference attracted much media hype and congressional participation, but also exposed the organization’s true character for those who chose to wade through the platitudes. It featured speakers with anti-Israel and even antisemitic pedigrees. Its participants reportedly criticized Israel for defending herself militarily, belittled the need for sanctions against Iran, condemned Jewish habitation in Jerusalem, proposed that Israel be stripped of her Jewish character, and trumpeted the so-called Saudi “peace plan,” which is actually a subtle strategy for the deconstruction of Israel. They also called for the Obama White House to impose upon Israel a coercive and destructive “peace.” Most telling were reports that J Street would cease describing itself as “pro-Israel” on college campuses (although its student board now disputes this).

How anybody can claim J Street is pro-Israel after such vile pageantry is beyond reason. Those who blindly accept J Street’s proclamations of support for Israel either agree with its extreme hubris, or are simply so ignorant of history that they accept its posturing at face value. But in word and deed, J Street is more invested in the creation of a Palestinian state than supporting Israel’s historic rights, and in promoting an agenda that, according to most major polls, is far outside of the American Jewish mainstream. Hence it needs to describe itself as moderate in order to cultivate and grow its audience. But in its effort to draw new converts, J Street seems to have far more in common with the Messianic Jewish movement than with the mainstream that it disingenuously claims to represent; and despite the differences in their messages, the tactical similarities are intriguing.

So-called Messianic Judaism employs a strategy of superficially adopting Jewish ritual practices in order to “look Jewish” while surreptitiously engaging in missionary activities. Its proponents establish congregations purporting to be Jewish, but loudly proclaim that belief in Jesus is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy – all in an effort to deceive poorly educated and unaffiliated Jews into joining their ranks.

Theologically, messianic Judaism is merely fundamentalist Protestantism with a superficial overlay of Jewish customs and traditions, and the membership of its congregations is primarily Gentile. Moreover, its “rabbis” are Christian missionaries with no rabbinical training or authority and, often, no Jewish heritage. At its core, the messianic movement’s theology is Christian, and represents a philosophical and intellectual dichotomy that is irreconcilable. So many aspects of Christianity are antithetical to Judaism that any movement claiming to integrate both belief systems is internally flawed and incongruent.

But the irreconcilable theological conflicts are of no concern for proponents of the messianic cult because their goal is purely and simply to convert Jews to Christianity. Their co-option and misuse of Jewish customs and traditions, their attempts – largely unsuccessful – to ingratiate themselves to local federations, and their bogus claims to represent a legitimate segment of the Jewish community despite their lack of halachic standing or Jewish ancestry, are simply the cynical and deceitful means to a dishonest end. Any inroads they make are blazed almost exclusively amongst Jews with weak backgrounds and little education who don’t have the tools to understand that the cult is not Judaism.

The tactic of obscuring the real message under layers of camouflage is similar to the methods employed by J Street, which uses a strategy of artifice to attract those with a weak sense of Jewish history and values. By loudly proclaiming that it is pro-Israel, J Street attracts those with neither the understanding nor inclination to delve below its surface and evaluate its real agenda. It also attracts those who believe that a secular, left-wing political agenda is the true expression of Jewish values, as well as those who reject traditional Jewish values in favor of so-called progressive ideals or who are uncomfortable with their Jewishness. The tools of J Street include historical revisionism, moral relativism, and, as has been widely reported, the manipulation of polling data, in order to claim that it represents a moderate alternative to AIPAC, which by juxtaposition is painted as extremist and archaic. These tactics are used to mask J Street’s true nature as a left-wing advocate for the Arab cause.

Indications of J Street’s true intentions abound. For example, one of the speakers at its convention was Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, an organization that is clearly anti-Israel. In an account reported in the New York Times in September 2001, while the wreckage of the World Trade Center was still smoldering, Al-Marayati had this to say:

If we’re going to look at suspects, we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention from what’s happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies.

Another scheduled speaker was Eli Pariser, the former Executive Director of MoveOn.Org, the left-wing political advocacy group that has been unabashed in its condemnations of Israel and apologia for Arab terror. This organization has been roundly criticized for permitting anti-Israel and antisemitic screeds to be posted on its website, although it did issue tepid denunciations for external consumption when it was so exposed. J Street also hosted a number of other speakers with histories of anti-Israel bias and advocacy, as well as Israeli leftists who no longer seem to have any credibility at home.

In addition to providing a forum for persons openly hostile to Israel, J Street continued to hammer home themes that are inconsistent with Israel’s continued safety and viability. Among other things, J Street believes that Israel’s invasion of Gaza was unjustified; that she should accede to any and all Palestinian demands, regardless of how absurd, without receiving any assurances or consideration in return; that history regarding Jewish habitation of Israel and the administration of the Palestine Mandate is irrelevant today; that Israel must consent to the immediate creation of an unprecedented Palestinian state even though the charters of Hamas and the PLO call for Israel’s destruction; and that any planned military action by Israel to protect herself from the Iranian nuclear threat should be squelched.

How hosting speakers with such backgrounds or promoting such counterintuitive policies could be considered “moderate” or pro-Israel is beyond reason; and any attempt to rationalize such conduct is a fool’s errand. The only rational conclusion that can be drawn by anybody with even a modicum of familiarity with Jewish, Arab and Mideast history is that J Street’s positions are anti-Israel, and represent the typical left-wing disdain for the Jewish State. One of the best proofs for this view was the convention participants’ reception of Rabbi Eric Yoffie, President of the Union for Reform Judaism.

Typical of the Reform rabbinate, Yoffie is critical of Israel’s so-called settlement policy, and he was not shy about sharing his thoughts on the subject. However, he also criticized J Street’s blanket condemnation of Israel’s invasion of Gaza, and condemned Richard Goldstone for his shameful report for the U.N. Human Rights Council, falsely accusing Israel of war crimes in Gaza without a shred objective proof. Rabbi Yoffie reportedly drew boos and hisses when he commented that, “Richard Goldstone should be ashamed of himself.”
More than anything, the crowd’s reaction to Rabbi Yoffie’s criticisms bespoke J Street’s true leanings, and evidenced a pathological hostility to Israel’s right to defend herself on all fronts – whether from rockets launched from Gaza or from the blood libel contained in the Goldstone report. Such conduct is neither moderate nor pro-Israel. However, just as the messianic movement employs the superficial use of Jewish ritual practices to suggest disingenuously that it is Jewish, so too J Street uses shallow statements of support for Israel to obscure its true agenda and to attract those who don’t know any better.

But just how consistent are J Street’s policies with Jewish values? The organization is typical of those Jews who claim that left-wing values are the true expression of core Jewish beliefs, despite the historical antipathy of the political left to Jewish religion, culture and national aspirations. Left-wing political agendas are not synonymous with Jewish values; and indeed the political left today is virulently anti-Zionist and antisemitic. Ironically, just as J Street uses empty expressions of fealty for Israel to obscure the true nature of its agenda, so too the political left uses the presence of many Jews within its ranks to claim that it is neither anti-Israel nor antisemitic. However, one cannot magically transform dawn into dusk by simply proclaiming that it’s nighttime.

Even J Street’s claims to be a Jewish organization are questionable, if the litmus test for those claims is the expression of traditional Jewish values or concern for the preservation of Jewish tradition, practice and culture. If the words and actions of its own executives are any indication, J Street fails this test miserably. When he was interviewed for a recent New York Times article, for example, executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami described the organization’s staff members thus: “They’re all intermarried . .
They’re all doing Buddhist seders.” Indeed, many of them reportedly don’t seem to understand the historical antecedents for the Jewish homeland. And these are glaring deficiencies for a group that claims to speak with a Jewish voice. Clearly, however, J Street caters to those for whom Jewish lifestyle, practice and vitality are not priorities. If J Street’s policymakers are so blasé regarding traditional Jewish mores or the continuity of the Jewish People, the question is whether they can truly define J Street as a “Jewish” organization at all, rather than as a political association that happens to have Jewish members.

As indicated by its stated policies and positions, J Street would seem to have little understanding of (or use for) Jewish history, Zionism, or the history of the Mideast. Consequently, its motivations are inconsistent with those of Jews who support Israel based on religious, ethnic, cultural and historical grounds. In fact, J Street’s motivations are not even consistent with those of Gentiles who support Israel for reasons of history and justice. It’s clear why J Street has determined that objective history is irrelevant to Israel’s current situation: its adherents either don’t know it or disregard it for political reasons. Moreover, they take their cues from a political left-wing that has adopted the revisionist Arab narrative without regard for its lack of historicity. Accordingly, Jews who know the difference should recognize that it is J Street’s views and motivations that should be deemed irrelevant; and that supporting J Street requires a suspension of objective history and traditional values.

Unfortunately, like the messianic movement, J Street has been very adept at garnering support from those who are poorly grounded in Jewish history, tradition and values, and who therefore are ill-equipped to challenge the veracity of its sales pitch. It has also been successful in attracting those who were raised to believe that progressive politics inherently subsume Jewish values. Consequently, J Street’s ultimate success will depend to a large extent on the ignorance of its prospective constituents – or their knowing rejectionism – and their willingness to accept the revisionist narrative with a religious-like faith.

The danger of J Street is that some accept its superficial claims to be pro-Israel without engaging in any critical analysis of its actual policies, public statements and conduct. In light of J Street’s seeming conversionary zeal in seeking new adherents – particularly from among the young – and because of its tactical similarity to the religious missionaries, true Israel advocates need to formulate a consistent strategy for challenging it as if it were an evangelical group. Clearly, J Street is waging a pitched political battle for control of the Jewish zeitgeist. Therefore, it is the greater community’s responsibility to reinforce the Jewish soul with education and a sense of history to strengthen it against J Street’s blandishments and intellectual conceits.