J Street, the “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobby, ran its first television commercial this past week. Watching the ad online confirmed my worst suspicions about this new organization which likes to portray itself as the “real voice” of the mainstream American Jewish community. Click here to view the ad Of course it is legitimate for American Jews, individually and collectively, to voice their support or opposition to any American or Israeli governmental policy. If all American Jews were united in their political perspective as to what stance Israel should take towards the Palestinians and what role the United States should play in Israeli-Palestinian relations, then it would make sense for one umbrella organization, like AIPAC, to speak for America's six million Jews. But American Jews are not united, and therefore the emergence of additional Middle East-focused organizational voices is to be expected. J Street's particular bias becomes quite obvious when you watch its new commercial. It begins and ends with overt political partisanship that seems to focus more on personalities than policies: “While chaos and violence in the Middle East grow, America's Chorus of No ignores reality”. Then we see photos of Joe Lieberman, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Alan Dershowitz, Mike Pence, and other spawn of Satan (i.e., conservatives, Republicans, and an ex-Democrat). We hear brief excerpted remarks of Palin, Limbaugh, and Pence, followed by: “Do they [Limbaugh & company] speak for YOU . . . or do they?” at which point the swelling music changes from discordant to melodic as President Obama appears onscreen, intoning the two-state mantra, “Two states living side by side in peace and security.” Photos of Obama, Clinton, and Petraeus appear onscreen: “Say yes to American Leadership. Join the community of yes.” So “American Leadership” in the Middle East is personified by the President, the Secretary of State, and the new commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Why is General Petraeus there at all? Wouldn't George Mitchell be more appropriate? After all, Mitchell is Obama's point person promoting Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. We can only guess why Petraeus appears in this commercial. Perhaps he is there based on his testimony before the Senate in March, after which he became associated with the idea that America's national interest is imperiled by the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian impasse. Perhaps because he's wearing a military uniform in the picture and Americans seem to like the military these days. The military projects an image of strength and a willingness to fight, while Obama is often accused by his detractors of being gun-shy. Maybe Petraeus is in the ad because he has mainstream popularity as the only American – military or civilian – since the First Gulf War with a proven track record of successful leadership in the Middle East. Obama and Clinton, on the other hand, after a year and a half of speeches, travel, and endless meetings, have little to show so far for all their efforts in the region. For that reason, I suppose it makes sense to link Petraeus with Obama and Clinton as an amalgam of good intentions plus on-the-ground results. This ad is a classic Democratic campaign ad, pitting the evil Republicans (“the Chorus of No”) against the Democrats, who are good (“the Community of Yes”). For the purposes of the ad, the general has been promoted to the rank of Honorary Democrat, despite his reputed Republican voter registration. There is nothing wrong with having another Jewish pro-two-state-solution organization operate in Washington DC and nationwide. We already have, among others, the American Friends of Peace Now and the Israel Policy Forum (newly-merged with Middle East Progress), both reputable and serious organizations. But J Street seems different in three important regards. First, it is an overtly Democratic Party organization. JStreetPAC, its political action committee, endorsed and distributed campaign contributions to 41 candidates in 2008, 39 of them Democrats and only 2 Republicans (both incumbent congressmen). In 2010 it has endorsed 58 candidates: 57 Democrats and 1 Republican (one of the two congressmen it endorsed in '08). Most other pro-Israel PACs split their donations more evenly between the two major parties. J Street's founding president, Jeremy Ben-Ami, has an impressive résumé of accomplishments, much of it in the world of Democratic Party politics. He worked for Bill Clinton, initially in his presidential campaign and eventually in the White House as his Deputy Domestic Policy Adviser. Later he served as deputy campaign manager in Mark Green's bid for New York mayor, followed by a stint as the Policy Director in Howard Dean's presidential campaign. He is politically connected in the upper echelons of the Democratic Party, which appears to be his comfort zone. Second, J Street is not just aligned with the Democratic Party; it is specifically an Obama support group, playing the part of a cheering section for the President to such an extent that the organization could be renamed Jews for Obama. It has consistently supported his approach to the Middle East even when most commentators who support a two-state solution have criticized his administration's tactics and timing. Through the last year and a half of White House bumbling and fumbling over the settlement freeze, J Street never once criticized Obama, Mitchell, Clinton, or the entire strategy of tough talk to Israel coupled with toothless threats and inept performance. Unlike AIPAC, J Street will not defend Israel no matter what it does. However, J Street will apparently defend Obama no matter what he does. Israel and the United States, like most other countries, including Arab ones, deserve criticism for their misguided steps, immoral actions, and wrong-headed policies. When a U.S. President screws up – Clinton, Bush, Obama, or whoever comes next – he (or she) should be called on it by friends as well as by foes. Third, the trouble with J Street is not that it is a Jewish Democratic Party-aligned organization or even that it is joined at the hip with the Obama administration. The problem is that it tries to turn peace in the Middle East into a proprietary issue of the Democrats and vilifies the Republicans as the enemies of peace. That might be a good strategy for electing Democrats, though I doubt it, but it is not a good strategy for building broad national support for a deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Most pollsters and pundits predict large gains for the Republicans in the midterm elections this November. Bipartisan support for the president's Middle East peace-making efforts will therefore become even more important. This summer seems like precisely the wrong time to escalate partisan rhetoric around a two-state solution. If there is one thing this conflict does not need it's more political partisanship. Those who want to see a resolution that works both for Israelis and Palestinians already have enough divisions among themselves regarding Gaza, Hamas, Jerusalem, settlements, borders, refugees, prisoner exchanges, etc. And those divisions do not necessarily split along party lines. Obama, like every other well-meaning Democratic or Republican president who tackles the Middle East, will get some things right and some others wrong. An organization that is supposedly “pro-Israel and pro-peace” should stick with those two allegiances: Israel and peace. Being “Pro-Obama” is something else. So what's wrong with J Street? It mixes up its views on the issues with domestic party politics. Just as barriers between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East need to be removed, barriers regarding the future of Israel/Palestine should not be erected between Democrats and Republicans. [Personal disclaimers: In 2009 I attended J Street's convention in order to hear from an excellent roster of speakers and panelists on the Middle East. I attended the AIPAC 2007 convention for similar reasons. I am not a supporter or a member of either organization. Nor am I a Democrat or a Republican, but rather an independent, with no party affiliation.] For more from Michael Lame, check out his blog BM
